The ‘Me-me!’ Meme

by rsbakker

Aphorism of the Day: If we don’t move, it’s because we remain motionless relative to ourselves.

So I’ve been as busy as all hell, the past couple of weeks, what with my pop in the hospital, family visiting, and staying on top of my writing schedule—not to mention trying to keep up with all the activity on the blogosphere.

Vox, it appears, has decided to wage a war of attrition, to keep throwing his cherries until people turn their bowls upside down. I’ve decided to oblige him. But since it stings my vanity knowing the self-aggrandizing way he’ll inevitably spin this, I figured I had better lay out some reasons, as well as discharge an old promise I made regarding the uses of abuses of arguing ad hominem.

Vox literally believes, if you recall, that he really is the winner of the Magical Belief Lottery. You might be inclined, on a occasion, to think that he is simply having one on, but I assure you, when he says things like, “Of course, I am a superintelligence, so the fact that [delevagus] been studying it for years whereas I read Sextus once on an airplane meant that it really wasn’t a fair contest,” he genuinely means it.

At this point, I’m inclined to simply take him as ‘Exhibit A’ of human irrationality. Some, in the jungle that has overrun the comment thread on the previous post, have suggested that I’m ‘running scared’ and the fact is, I am. But from what he represents, not what he ‘argues.’ Vox is what you might call an ‘epistemic bombast’–self-described. He literally believes he has the most powerful three pound brain in the universe. That, in my books, counts as delusional.

One thing I was always big on in my teaching days was what I called the ‘minimum condition of rationality.’ Once you realize that reason is primarily argumentative, as opposed to epistemic, you realize that reason is just as liable to deceive as to reveal. So the question you always need to ask yourself in any debate is whether you are the victim of your own ingenuity. You are more apt to use you intelligence to justify your stupidity post hoc—to rationalize—than otherwise. And that’s a fact Jack.

Thus the crucial importance of epistemic humility. Rational debate is impossible with epistemic bombasts simply because, as more and more research shows, reason is primarily a public relations device, a way to snag other three pound brains, and only secondarily epistemic, a way to snag the world. It is quite literally impossible to convince an epistemic bombast of anything on theoretical subject matters lacking any clear, consensually defined truth conditions.

This is why some cognitive psychologists are now arguing that rationality is quite independent of intelligence.

So what then is the measure of epistemic humility? How can you tell whether you should trust yourself, let alone your interlocutor?

Well some interlocutors, like Vox, make things easy for you. Vox is a self-declared epistemic bombast. As such, given that you accept that science is the best tool we have ever devised for sorting—even if only contingently—fact from fiction, you can write him off as a serious interlocutor.

In other words, you can safely dismiss him on ad hominem grounds.

Other interlocutors are nowhere so easy. One of the things I was hoping to spark with this post is a discussion of the kinds of criteria that could be used to make this determination.

Or how about yourself—or in my case, myself? How can we know whether we’ve lapsed into the epistemic bombast mould, especially knowing that we have a hardwired predilection to do so?

In my case, the fact that I genuinely struggle with this question gives me some hope. As deflationary (minimal) as my position is (at least in terms of exclusive epistemic commitments), I have never in my life consistently believed anything for such a long time. I know the way the brain works, how repeated functions get stamped into its very architecture—and how this architecture is the very frame of reference for what does and does not make sense.

I try to restrict myself to platitudes, like the fact that not all claims are equal, or the fact that science is easily the most transformative claim-making institution in human history. Like the social constructivists, Vox seems to think that commitment to a philosophical theory of ‘What Science Is’ warrants suspending commitment to What Science Does (provide us with facts about nature). For my part, I have no definitive idea What Science Is, but I am deeply impressed by what it makes possible—like for instance, the semiconductor technology that allows you to read this at all.

Now the retreat to platitudes is not without its perils, simply because these could be wrong as well. I’ve probably been accused of being ‘dogmatic about science’ as much as anything else over the years. But for the life of me, I can’t think of any theoretical claim-making institution with a track record even remotely resembling that of science. It really seems to be the case that nothing compares.

Given science, you actually have a very powerful standard for sorting interlocutors according to rationality. As soon as your interlocutor starts telling you What Science Is, you should smell a cognitive rat. Why? Because odds are they have some set of philosophical or religious claims that are incompatible with scientific fact. In other words, they find themselves in the embarrassing position of having to discredit the most powerful claim-making institution in human history to make their own claims stick.

The argument tends to take a similar form:

Armchair claim (1): Science is A.

Armchair claim (2): A is a social construct, philosophically derivative, or epistemically overblown, etc.

Therefore, armchair conclusion (3): Scientific claims (or a particular set of them) should not be believed.

In other words, even though scientific claims have transformed the world, even though they seem to possess every theoretical virtue we know of (short of flattering our parochial preconceptions), we should suspend our commitment to them on the basis of a prior commitment to one out of hundreds of armchair claims regarding What Science Is—which, by some happy coincidence, happens to flatter this or that parochial preconception.

Pardon me for suggesting this is just more self-serving bullshit. Rationalization. Like I’ve said many times before, it seems awfully like convicting Mother Theresa on Ted Bundy’s testimony.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be critical of science. My own worry is that it is too powerful of an institutional tool for a species as vain and blinkered as ourselves. And there’s no shortage of bad science, simply because scientists belong to the same vain and blinkered species. Nevertheless, when it comes to the provision of reliable, comprehensive, actionable information regarding nature, it is literally the only game in town. When an interlocutor thinks their wank trumps scientific fact, there’s a good chance you’re locking horns with an epistemic bombast.

In other words, epistemic humility entails demuring to scientific fact, especially when you find it inconvenient.

Where science doesn’t have anything to say, I try to avoid exclusive epistemic commitments as much as I can, and always try to remind myself to entertain theoretical positions, not believe them. I’m skeptical of governments to the degree I’m skeptical of centralized answers to supercomplicated social problems. I’m skeptical of markets to the degree I am skeptical of power. I see political and economic matters as an interminable high-wire act, an attempt to sum the interests of disparate and often antagonistic constituencies. Some guesses have to be made, of course. Policy is unavoidable: but it has to be experimental. We need the humility to 1) recognize our inevitable mistakes; and 2) let people, as much as possible, chart their own social and moral course.

Likewise, I take it to be a platitude that Christianity is one out of thousands of religions claiming supernatural authority. I also think it’s a platitude that each of those religions has adherents, like Vox, claiming ‘indisputable evidence’ that always turns out to be quite disputable indeed.

And on a number of issues, like consciousness, I find myself mired in what Roger would call, ‘epistemic akrasia,’ the state of having been ‘rationally forced’ to reach conclusions that I simply cannot bring myself to believe. Meaning skepticism is the big one.

Of course, for people who reject my platitudes, I have to be the bombastic one. Each of us is cursed with being our own frame of reference, with having only the yardsticks and information we happen to have. Perhaps you think science is no great shakes, or that your armchair theories, unlike those entertained by billions of others, actually happen to be right. Perhaps you really have won the Magical Belief Lottery–ruly truly.

Or perhaps not. I’m sure that you’ll forgive me for thinking you’re at least as full of shit as I fear that I am.

A very interesting post, Mr. Bakker, and I think one that makes your position more defensible, and perhaps I was misinterpreting it before. I think in clarifying your views here you have climbed down a bit from what I would consider to be a strictly naturalist position.

You are not, at least in this post, claiming that empirical science gives us knowledge and everything else gives us opinion. You are not even quite arguing that science gives us ‘better’ knowledge than any other mode of inquiry. You are instead taking a much more limited position, which I feel is more easily tenable, namely that science is the ‘theoretical claim-making institution with the best track record.’ Though oddly enough, the only example you give of this track record, the semiconductor, is an achievement in engineering (as well as science, of course). And I am not sure if you would rank mathematics beneath science or include it within science. Certainly it isn’t empirical, and if it isn’t science, I think it could conceivable demote science to the ‘second best theoretical claim-making institution.’

Nevertheless, even if we can all agree that science is at least ‘one of the best theoretical claim-making institutions we have,’ this claim still leaves a great deal of room remaining for other types of knowledge, for other institutions which may be less theoretical but more reliable, and even for other modes of knowing the world which may have a less reliable track record, but are nonetheless sometimes compelling. And it even leaves the door open for some other theoretical claim-making institutions which are merely ‘pretty good,’ but in certain circumstances might be more worthy of trust than the ‘best’ institution.

At any rate I can’t think of any credible critic of science who would disagree with your core position here–including Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Kuhn, Rorty, etc. I’m not even sure Vox would. What they really want is to keep open the possibility of other ways of ‘knowing’ the world, and an awareness of the very important shortcomings that science has, despite all its achievements. And I think if you weren’t so politically offended, you might be open to some of these arguments, which don’t even necessarily challenge your core position. Science can be ‘the best’ or ‘one of the best’ and still have notable flaws.

I’m not really familiar with Chaitin, but his theses do sound interesting. Unfortunately I lack the mathematical competence to evaluate them. My worry is that, once you embrace mathematics as science, your definition of science becomes exceedingly broad. Are Bertrand Russell and the early Wittgenstein then science as well? What about Husserlian phenomenology? St. Anselm’s ontological proof…?

But it brings me back to the GEB. I didn’t understand what’s his take on Godel’s paradox.

But mostly his approach was about saying that a simple theory is a good one. So “understanding” is about some form of reductionism that recognizes a pattern into chaos.

Reminds me the Theory of Everything debate. The more a theory is useful and predicts useful thing, the more specific and narrow it is. The more a theory explains everything, the more it coincides with a theory of nothing. Which is a language property/problem, since words follow the same pattern: the more a word is generic and information-less, the more it defines a great number of things (say, “fruit”), and the more it is specific and information-dense (say, “apple”) the more the number of objects it comprises is reduced.

Not sure how it fits in our debate, though. I just don’t understand how one can say mathematics and science are two different things. They are exactly the same, ESPECIALLY from Scott’s perspective (without “believing” in science, but merely appreciating the outputs).

Mathematics is clearly not science. It does not use the scientific method, it is not empirical, the conclusions are deductive not inductive, it is not materialistic and it does not produce testable hypotheses. Just because scientists use mathematics does not mean science encompasses mathematics.

For disclosure, I am a mathematician so I’m pretty elitist when it comes to this topic.

It makes a good deal more sense to say that science is just applied math. At least in my conception, quantifiable results are a necessary part of any scientific inquiry. The math may sometimes (or often) be little more than basic arithmetic, but without that arithmetic all you have is a string of observed phenomena.

It’s a silly distinction to make. It’s like saying “grammar” is not “language”.

Mathematics is the grammar of science. It is definitely empirical since all empirical observations are based on it. If one day someone discovered an empirical property that invalidates a mathematical problem, then the mathematical problem would need a reformulation. Like a scientific theory.

Not ALL mathematics fall into scientific domain, but that’s merely because they are attempts at doing something. The only difference is that math tends to build bridges over nothing without being really sure where it’s going. But eventually they’ll meet again.

Since scientists write down their observations in language and write papers detailing their results, is literature science? Clearly not

Further, mathematical theorems are not verified by empirical observation, they are verified by deductive proof. No new evidence, apart from identifying a logical error in the proof, will overturn a theorem.

As for the need to reformulate a mathematical problem when faced with contrary empirical evidence, that is the scientist’s problem not the mathematician. It means he wrongly appllied a mathematical framework to the natural world, big that the mathematical theorem is wrong.

Just because similar nerdy people become both scientists and mathematicians does not mean that the two forms of inquiry are the same.

No new evidence, apart from identifying a logical error in the proof, will overturn a theorem.

I don’t see the difference. Mathematics is abstract, so its proof is the logical error.

Science has also to be deducted. Science begins when you’re making a theory, when you’re making sense of something and start testing it. One “realm” may be more concrete than the other, but both rely on some deduction and logic to work.

I wander if self esteem may have something to do on the matter. I am always shock by people who appear to have absolutely no self doubt.
I remember the day when I started questioning my own faith. I did not want to, but I had to, I was going through what Scott referred to epistemic akrasia. But the ability to question our own beliefs, to not believe ourselves to be the winners of the Magical Belief Lottery, has to start with self doubt. Even when I had faith I had the habit of belittling myself, “I am nothing special” I would say.
Our culture values self esteem and deplores self doubt. Assertiveness is more precious than caution. If we are taught to never question our own skills, that we are always number one, then such attitudes will build immunity to facts and reality.
So maybe a high self esteem is an unhealthy habit if getting closer to the truth is what we are after.

Good post. Makes me think how “no one escapes the plate” in the books. Even the Inchie brothers, possibly the oldest beings on Earwa, are pitted through with self-deceptions and flatteries (hmmmm, are the cancerous grafts in their translucent skin a physical mark of this inner deformity?)

Heck, even the gods, it seems can be blinded. What this means for the WLW remains to be seen.

One litmus test I try to use is why does someone want to be certain – what advantage do they seek. People who want to put their pettiness on a pedestal, using the idea of a Supreme Being or whatever to sneer and mock others with racial/sexist/homophobic slurs, these are the people I find clinging to their certainty.

Hey, in some sense I get it. Metabolism slows down, hairline’s receding ever year, and suddenly you need an outlet for all that frustration. Porn can only help so much, especially if you’re not willing to pay for it or you know outside of your screen name your wife not only has the vote but also the veto.

Can’t rail against Jesus for not giving you the life you wanted or not making you fuckable enough to just start over, so why not target the gays, the blacks and the Mexicans?

However, I think the important to realize is scientific claims aren’t the prize or goal, they are just the targeted stream and field in another war. That war I think doesn’t necessarily have a side on which science sits – if anti-gay, anti-choice policies weren’t so wedded to religion would any of us even care about who thinks evolution is real?

Your insistence on humility strikes me as anti-intellectual in a very deep sense, because it is more about enforcing a social norm than investigating claims to determine whether they are true or not. You criticize Vox for being bombastic, for essentially refusing to genuflect each time he makes an argument. Perhaps you think in the long run more humility will lead to more rational discourse, but in the short term you use it as a tactic to short-circuit debate and as an excuse to hold onto your current beliefs and to avoid engaging with his arguments. I’ve met enough arrogant pricks who were absolutely correct to know that arrogance does not imply error. Real humility and integrity means accepting that people you dislike could be right and then investigating what they have to say for yourself.

Unfortunately true. I think embracing the ad hominem is a poor move, usually favorable only to ideologues and not at all necessary to maintain Mr. Bakker’s position. E.g. Pol Pot dismissed all men wearing glasses in a similar fashion. There are times where the ad hominem is a useful shortcut, but is this really one of them?

I don’t think the arguments of a particularly questionable person should be dismissed outright simply because of the person making them. I do believe that we should “adjust the volume” of that person’s arguments at certain times after becoming aware of said person’s quirks. I don’t see this as an ad hominem.

In this case it seems to be more of a check against the appeal to authority: “I am smarter than you and therefore everything I say is correct.” It’s a consideration of the source of an argument rather than an attack of that source. In certain cases the qualities of a particular source are also a premise for an argument: X is Buddhist, therefore every argument made by X assumes Buddhism is true. Any argument made by X includes the implicit premise, “The tenets of Buddhism are true.” Taking issue with the fact that X is a Buddhist to disprove the argument isn’t an ad hominem in this case. It’s an issue with a premise that also happens to be deeply connected with the source of the argument.

Being an arrogant prick raises the chance that you’re full of shit. Of course, there’s always the chance that you’re the very rare arrogant prick who consistently utters oracle-like truth. But then we hear that you believe science is an unreliable means to discover things about the world, but when we look at the world we see clear evidence that science has radically transformed it. What does that do to the probability that you’re full of shit?

Could not agree more. Being right is an art form that requires learning from previous mistakes. An arrogant prick will never admit, or most importantly recognize, a mistake, so how could a prick ever learn anything?

A lot of arrogant pricks got that way because they have been consistently right while others around them floundered. I have been extremely arrogant when I was clearly superior to my peers and humble when I was clearly inferior to my peers.

Scott is talking about how Vox has established an epistemic foundation on the circular argument, “I know I’m always right because I know I’m smarter than everyone, and I know I’m smarter than everyone because I know I’m always right.” When dealing with someone who takes a fact’s conformation to her preconceptions as a necessary condition for truth, rational discourse is literally impossible, and need not be attempted.

If you or Scott actually think this about Vox, then you have grossly misunderstood him.

Being smarter than someone else can help you be right more often, just as having a larger engine will help your car go faster. He does not believe that his intelligence automatically makes him correct.

He can also support the contentions that he is probably smarter than you and that he is often correct by pointing to a wealth of evidence, such as IQ scores and almost 10 years worth of correct predictions on his blog.

Your insistence on humility strikes me as anti-intellectual in a very deep sense, because it is more about enforcing a social norm than investigating claims to determine whether they are true or not.

Why would you investigate if you don’t practice humility? Why would you not make yourself the sole interpretor of what ‘investigate’ intails, if you don’t practice humility? In each case you’re just ‘right’ – why by humble when you’re ‘right’? That’s VD’s motto.

Religion is also the abolition and civil rights movement, charities, the thing that has stopped several transgendered people from committing suicide, and also spurred on philosophical and even, at times, mathematical thought.

I always find it a bit odd that people think if we removed religious belief people would become more civilized. Whether you’re looking at Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama, religion engenders the “humanist” values liberals espouse.

Seems like aspects of morality cannot be rationalized, even if the rational (Kellhus) can manipulate such sentiment.

Have you looked up Penn & Tellers ‘Bullshit’ series on Teresa or the Dalai Lama? Actually it engenders the hypocracy of religion. Ironically it’s probably more examples of those NOT in the limelight who do a ton of charity work and get hospitals built in third world countries. But even then, what does their religious inclination lead to, if they were to hear a whisper in their ear, apparently from god, telling them to go kill people? Would they question what seems to be gods orders? Heck, what would anyone do? But when you’ve already told yourself you serve this ‘nod’* idea, what then?

* just changing the name to something else, to make it appear simply another new idea, rather than enact the possibly deep connitations it might have otherwise.

Penn and Teller is pretty suspect, they fit the mold of people who think religion is a barrier to some kind of secular humanism that is just waiting to blossom. I can’t help but think the opposite is true.

Do you think atheism will manage to produce a society as charitable as a religious – or at least spiritual – one?

Besides, if we’re going to use different words, maybe I’m incorrect on this score but I find the most liberal optimism with regards to green job investment during a recession to be nothing more than religious hoping and wishing.

“But even then, what does their religious inclination lead to, if they were to hear a whisper in their ear, apparently from god, telling them to go kill people?”

If they hear a whisper in their ear, which tells them to kill people and they do it, I think this has more to do with a damage in their brain than with their religious inclination.
If you take Christianity, there are still commandments to consider:
You shall not kill.
And if you really believe and are a rational human being (yes, they exist [not me btw; I’m a well-behaved atheist]), wouldn’t you think this “message” is coming from the devil?
If you think it’s from god or this “nod”, which you seem to worship, then you’re just stupid and probably would kill those people anyways.

Religion often takes the blame, but more often religion just gets abused by people who are aiming for a different goal.

‘but more often religion just gets abused by people who are aiming for a different goal.’
As opposed to what religion is really about – which exists enough to prove that these guys are going for different goals. Or maybe kinda there’s an issue and how do you prove they are going for different goals? Thou shalt not kill? It was in self defence! They were taking our oil and who rides a bike!? Jesus didn’t!

It depends if a particular religion gets some technical writing done on what it’s movement is toward. Then in regard to that religion I’d be more inclined to consider if your point applied.

Penn and Teller is pretty suspect
Wow, Saajan, there’s judging the person instead of the evidence? PS: I wasn’t too happy going into the video, either. But I’m more of a cynic than you, so it was easier to make peace with (make peace as in maybe in some long shot, slim odds way it’s wrong – hopefully so. I tend to believe in things I wish were not true – that way I can’t lose!)

Do you think atheism will manage to produce a society as charitable as a religious – or at least spiritual – one?
Depends on who gets to interpret ‘charitable’s meaning in this context, really. Anyway, as far as I can tell religion is about gods coming first. That or say actually the god isn’t important – in which case, can you just drop the god part?

Given Scott’s notion on science cracking the black box of the mind, even Atheism’s notion of self could probably be classed as a spiritualist religion. so maybe it could work out, in being as much as the other?

I meant I’ve seen Bullshit, and it’s pretty slanted. Even people who think Gandhi’s assassination actually saved India from disaster thought their character assassination was suspect.

Do you care that I tenuously hold to the idea of reincarnation as the afterlife? Or that Vox believes in Christ as his Savior? Or that we have some Buddhists around here?

Or is it the part with caste systems, terrorism, and misogyny that you don’t like?

It seems most criticism of religion is in that it supports “obviously bad things”, and that is uses as its foundation a source of truth for the “obviously bad things” something that one can’t prove. It yields to the expert aka the prophet/descended Bodhisvatta/messiah.

My point is that most secular people also yield to experts, and when they don’t they decide a risk is worth taking – even when that risk involves the opportunity cost of a nation’s economy – because it supports their belief.

Most “religion” in the world, it seems to me, has already dropped the god part. See Wall Street Crash, Green Job Investments for the conservative/liberal split on this.

dietl, if you’ve ever done programming I’m sure you’ve made an if statement whos contingencies are far more complex than what I wrote.

‘As opposed to what religion is really about – which exists enough…’

If a religion was about collecting stamps and some guy is training guys to fly a plane into a building, you can take the physical qualities of stamps and draw evidence the plane flying isn’t part of the religion.

Okay, so when your religion is about ‘god’ and some guy is blah blah…well, you can take the physical qualities of god and…awww shit, no you can’t.

I mean, to speak in the parlance, god made the rule ‘don’t kill’. God can take it back again – how do you prove god did not do so?

That cover some of the confusion or is the technical writing comment an issue too?

What would you think of a god or his/her/its rules if they can be taken back? Any rational human being would say, hey, you god are logically inconsistent, maybe you’re no god at all, but just an illusion.
There are those, who believe god can’t be logically inconsistent (all this creating stones the god can’t lift stuff despite being allmighty).

What I’m trying to say is, that if you are a fanatic or psychopath (or both), you would probably do those killings anyways, if you believe in god or not. There is nothing ‘to prove’ for them.

I know, I’m reapeating myself, but:
There are two people. Both hear voices telling them to kill people. One thinks its god and obeys, the other just obeys.
Was religion responsible for the first person’s killings?

Any rational human being would say, hey, you god are logically inconsistent, maybe you’re no god at all, but just an illusion.
Dude, I doubt you’d say something like that to a big bikie if they walked into the bar. You think people are gunna say that to ‘god’ (or that cult leader who says he speaks gods word)?

But maybe you would say it to the bikie. Maybe that’s what makes you the athiest that you mentioned? Could be a theory of mind issue – you can get inside the head space involved?

There are two people. Both hear voices telling them to kill people. One thinks its god and obeys, the other just obeys.
Was religion responsible for the first person’s killings?
How do you interpret ‘religion’? Taking the writings of some kinda nod and enacting it’s commands? Maybe you typed your examples the wrong way around and are asking about the second persons killings. The first – well, it seems to be an enactment of commands precisely in line with the procedure/dogma of religion? The second, yeah, still religion – why on earth would you obey the commands of that voice? Well, if you’ve pledged yourself to follow it’s commands? What else is religion? Stamp collecting?

What I’m trying to say is, that if you are a fanatic or psychopath (or both), you would probably do those killings anyways, if you believe in god or not. There is nothing ‘to prove’ for them.
Skipping the psychopath part for now, a fanatic…what? A fanatic…stamp collector? A fanatic….what? I haven’t really heard the word fanatatic outside the context of religion, so to me your refering to a fanatatic, a word intimately tied to religion, but as if it doesn’t refer to religion.

My point is that most secular people also yield to experts, and when they don’t they decide a risk is worth taking – even when that risk involves the opportunity cost of a nation’s economy – because it supports their belief.

Most “religion” in the world, it seems to me, has already dropped the god part. See Wall Street Crash, Green Job Investments for the conservative/liberal split on this.

I think that’s probably worse, because the god isn’t dropped, it becomes hidden.

It’s the blank chequ-ism that’s at the center. A writ to do as much as you want, really. As I said before, if a religion had some technical writing done on just how far it’s enactors can go (a capped cheque), that’s something else to consider. Of course, we might end up in ‘it already does’ territory – and then it’ll be a question of who gets to interpret the asserted caps.

Do you care that I tenuously hold to the idea of reincarnation as the afterlife? Or that Vox believes in Christ as his Savior? Or that we have some Buddhists around here?
What of my beliefs, when you demand answer on this? Or were you just thinking of your own and suddenly I’m/my beliefs are on the outer? Where was I at that point? I was the only to be asked whether they care of the other?

What I was trying to say in my excample with the two people is, that it I believe, that people would act the same way even if there was no religion.
The voice is the elephant and it isn’t religious. The rider is more the religious type.
But, you know, that’s just my opinion. I don’t think there will ever be no religion in our world and I see no way how this would change.

Though that of course does not prove that religion is “bad” – religion is complicated. However, most modern religions invite certain patterns of thought (such as, just for example, unquestioning faith in claims regarding a being you never personally interacted with, made by people who can not demonstrate that they have personally interacted with it) which are…exploitable in a very fundamental way.

Are the advances you’re pointing out a product of religious beliefs, or just an effect of religion as a social organizing institution/a vehicle for mobilizing capital/privilege?

As a historian, for instance, it’s impossible to underrate the importance of Catholicism to the preservation of culture and literacy – but I don’t think it’s fair to say this is because Catholicism is fundamentally oriented toward the preservation of knowledge. Rather, an effect of institutional power is the ability to create a leisured class that accommodates literacy and the preservation of knowledge. In the case of someone like Martin Luther King and civil rights, is it fair to say that religion was a cause – or, alternatively, that religion created social networks that were turned into advocacy networks?

I think I’ve mentioned before that I’m most influenced by Marx (and neo-Marxism), so where you see religion as a force of good in and of itself, I tend to see if as an institution that has been useful through its ability to leverage capital and build social action movements by unite people. In other words, I look at it as an institution (that may be correct about the afterlife) that, through a combination of capital and prestige, can leverage humans to act. But I don’t think there’s anything absolute about religious institutions that makes them particularly good or praiseworthy in the way that you do – any mass movement or sufficiently monetized organization could do the same thing (given similar resources).

Oh I don’t think religion is inherently good or evil, but to simply say that removing all belief in the supernatural would yield a net benefit to humanity is stretching credibility and seems wishful thinking on the part of Dawkins and his “brights”.

My point is more that religion can inspire morality or provide support for those fighting the good fight, though goodness itself seems like a mystery to me.

“One of the things I was hoping to spark with this post is a discussion of the kinds of criteria that could be used to make this determination.”

a reasonable and obvious shortcut in any debate would seem to be having both sides explain what they see as the falsifiability criterion for their own argument at the outset. for an atheist, this might be stipulating conditions that would convince him or her that there is in fact a god (or even a particular god – poseidon, let’s say).

[sidebar: when atheists do this, they can be quite demanding, from what i’ve read on this issue; theists, by contrast, seem to ask very little – i’m reminded of Hume’s take on miracles, here: “The gazing populace receive greedily, without examination, whatever soothes superstition and promotes wonder.” this may explain the sorry logic of Christian apologetics, generally.]

this style of thinking – emphasizing falsifiability – is endemic to contemporary science. institutionally, anonymous peer review is intended to fulfill this role, but in practice scientists typically try to anticipate the objections of the reviewers, and refute them, prior to submission of their papers. much of the analytical work involves ruling out alternative explanations for a given finding using the existing dataset (or collecting more data – e.g., control experiments – when necessary). it’s a useful but difficult habit to cultivate. i think it explains much of the superior traction of science when the rubber of human thought hits the road of material reality. hat tip to popper. friendly wave to kuhn. (feyerabend can fuck himself).

so, “what would it take to convince me that i’m wrong?” is a good start, but as the original post above suggests, some will always try to game this process as well. however, the patent absurdity of their falsifiability criteria can often make it clear they are doing so, and will never cease doing so.

the idea of the “smart idiot effect” has been discussed in a prior thread. it’s a fascinating fact that alexander pope’s idea old notion that “a little learning is a dangerous thing” is flawed, since evidence is mounting that for many people (and for conservatives in particular), continued drinking does not “sober [them] again”, it just makes them talk louder, pick fights, and eventually piss themselves (epistemologically speaking).

Firstly, it’s an impossible standard if you actually want to learn new things. Often your initial attempt at a hypothesis becomes patently silly upon further reflection. But you see your error, do some more thinking and improve on your next guess. If you try to never be wrong, you will never take a risk that will lead to being right.

Secondly, one outlandish belief does not invalidate your others. James Watson believes that black Africans have inferior IQs and Freeman Dyson does not believe in global warming. Does that invalidate their other work?

[Watson] is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.

had he said that “black Africans have inferior IQs” he would simply have been stating the results of years of such tests.

If you favor the process where you simply make mad guesses as your initial hypotheses, I see no problem with it so long as you don’t cling to them as persistent beliefs, but it’s amazing how many people really do cling to beliefs that are grossly out of line with reality. I don’t think the one you suggest is a method of choice since it’s inefficient. There’s usually at least something you can back your hypotheses with.

The Watson and Dyson examples don’t even come close to the level of contrary absurdity that some people support. Consider Scientology, or some doctrines of Mormonism.

The second criterion I would suggest is being wary of all ideology, your own and other’s, which doesn’t mean perfunctory disqualification of ideological claims, but rather “profiling” them for closer scrutiny and verification. Carefully consider rebuttals to your ideology; devote time to investigate and think about them. Mistrust others who have not done so.

Group-think is even worse than ideology. Double down on the scrutiny you give it.

Incidentally, Vox seems to intentionally state his views in a way that makes them sound particularly abrasive and even foolish to his interlocutors. But when you examine them, I think you will sometimes find that some of his claims at least are more subtle and even sensible than their initial appearance would indicate. I can only imagine that he experiences some kind of perverse pleasure at his ability to phrase rational arguments in such a way that others will find themselves unable to accept them.

Actually, Mr. Bakker’s current position really doesn’t contradict much of what Vox has said on the previous thread! Vox, however, is going to make a big deal of Mr. Bakker’s attempt to incorporate mathematics into science, and is also going to point out that this newly clarified, ‘soft epistemology’ I’ll call it (an epistemology of ‘but hey, it has a pretty good track record compared to the other options’), appears to arbitrarily favor science over engineering simply because it is more ‘theoretical,’ quietly brushing non-theoretical and non-institutional forms of knowledge under the rug, without actually proving their inferiority.

Without theory you are usually operating in the dark. This doesn’t mean you can’t still discover things, but it does mean you’re going to be using a lot of trial and error. When you do discover things that appear to work, you won’t have a clear understanding of their boundary conditions — because, duh!, you never developed the theory behind them! I consider the archetypes here Edison and Tesla. Edison plowed through empirical trial and error experimentation. Tesla sat at a desk and formulated inventions from theory in his head. Both men were effective, but because Edison was plagued by the legacy of non-theory he made a number of blunders that Tesla gracefully sidestepped. The difference probably played a big part in why the two men hated each other.

Good catch! Thanks, dietl, I overstated the case. What I should have said is simply that mathematics seems to be difficult to place within the framework Mr. Bakker just sketched out. If he calls it a science, then he may be compelled to incorporate other realms of inquiry under the term ‘science.’ And if he doesn’t call it a science, then it seems possible to demote science to the second rank. All of this falls out of his decision to avoid defining ‘science.’ I am not sure he will be able to hold onto that decision. I do think it very likely that Vox will bring up the issue.

By the way, I do think there is something charming about this ‘soft epistemology.’ But there is also something more fun, even novelistic, in phrasing it as you do in terms of ‘evil attempts’ and ‘clever readers.’ Regarding it from such a perspective could even help us to cultivate a unique sort of objectivity, a bit like watching two spiders fight in a nature documentary, if you take my meaning. As long as no ill will is intended!

felicitous indeed. i think a close examination of many of the most successful scientists will show that they were ‘engineers’ to the extent that they built novel apparati for themselves to conduct their studies, and those studies would not have been possible without them.

for example – i just returned from a talk about neural coding in the retina, and the speaker was only able – given limits on computation at the time – to perform the experiments after constructing a novel method that involved flat mounting the retina on a planar bed of electrodes using hardware that could detect and timestamp action potentials (storing the voltage waveforms was impractical). others genetically engineer a new mouse, in order to isolate a particular effect, etc. (see also optogenetics).

in this context, the odd distinction between science and engineering that is drawn seems to turn on the idea of commercial viability, which makes little sense if what’s at issue is understanding a feature of the natural world (e.g., how W3-type retinal ganglion cells in mice might detect aerial predators). on a related note, many biotech and electronics companies conduct all or nearly all of their business with academic scientists – in that context, it seems odd to try to argue about the relative epistemic privilege of Engineering in General over Science in General, when the former exists entirely to serve the needs of the latter in numerous niches.

for me, that’s when it’s fairly obvious that the argumentative intent is askew, and aimed elsewhere (i.e., defending particular religious or cultural beliefs that are indefensible within (and often had been thought to be orthogonal to) the context of standard scientific practice). the problem, perhaps, is that nothing stands outside of science when humans are involved, given our embodied brains:

on the other hand, within the scientific framework, the ‘supernatural’ content of religious belief is assumed to be groundless. little wonder it rankles the ‘subjects’.

finally, with respect to the ‘formal’ sciences, many advances in computational neuroscience don’t involve the invention of new mathematics, but the novel application of existing mathematical techniques. for example, it might involve a formal proof that a particular class of model has an advantage that is strictly practical (e.g., restricting the class of nonlinearity in a linear-nonlinear cascade model ensures a convex likelihood surface for model-fitting, ensuring convergence of the model, or ensuring compatibility with a particular algorithm like gradient descent). if anything, some of the math seems to bleed into software engineering (again, purpose-built for scientific applications). i may be confusing algorithm design (computer science) for math, here. i will leave it to mathematicians to judge whether these constitute advances in math per se.

in general, however, i don’t see how semantic jiggering with the Great Epistemic Hierarchy of Human Endeavor will accelerate the development of oncology, neuroprosthetics, etc.

I sometimes try to bring more “epistemic humility,” as you call it, into my conversations simply because I often think I sound like a patronizing ass. My favorite technique is to posit a few falsification conditions for my contentious claims, and encourage others to help supply more. Though I fear this is just a good rhetorical method for swaying people to my position, since most don’t spend more than a couple seconds imagining counter-factuals.

I suppose I’d add if the other person wants to be the sole interpretor of what a word means (warning sign – they read out (their reading of) the dictionary to you), but they sure as hell wouldn’t want to grant you sole interpretor rights, that’s a bad sign (it’s obviously unequal). Bad because it means stage two, where you both attempt to make it that you’re using one word the same way as each other – that attempt does not occur.

I think his thoughts are solid, but can’t be directly translated in practice like that. He’s making Vox into some sort of catalyst to make a theoretical speculation into a practical one. As if he’s using metaphors.

The problem is that it’s not really helpful to establish whether Vox is a legitimate interlocutor on the basis of some objective reasoning. By making everything so radical he’s saying that Vox is “probably wrong”, but not because Scott is biased or doesn’t like him, or because Vox represents the foe to defeat, but on the basic of some scientific reasoning that works independently and without a will.

We are all probably wrong, so the best way to judge something is by relying on a sort of external, objective tool without an agenda: science. And this tool (and not Scott) tells us that Vox is very likely wrong and exhibiting all signs of someone who’s hugely delusional.

And so the ad hominem charge: I’m going to be even more wary and skeptical than usual with everything you (Vox) say.

But despite this, even if it’s all acceptable, this still doesn’t say much on a merit of a discussion. Vox is likely wrong. Vox is delusional if he thinks he won the magical belief lottery.

But he still can say an “x” number of interesting things, in a way or another. He can still be right about a number of things. Or holding a number of things that are useful to the way to that truth. You can simply put everything in a bag and label it “non relevant”.

As far we deal with the human condition, we obligatorily deal with many levels and degrees. Not simply TRUE, FALSE. There are various degrees of understanding, various complexities. So you can’t rule out what someone can say simply on the basis on a probabilistic claim on truth.

Religion was also used to justify all of those things, Saajan. Blacks were said to have the “mark of Cain,” were reminded of the scripture, “Slaves obey your masters,” etc. And maybe I’m being subjective here but I don’t think I need to see the data to know religion is more responsible for the deaths of transgender people than it has saved.

You can’t have it both ways. Killing in the name of God is as much a part of it as saving lives in the name of charity is. Hitler justified killing Jews as “the Lord’s work.” That’s a fact.

And it is currently the number one justification for reversing civil liberties in the US. The LDS church was behind ads during California’s prop 8 (a clear but entirely unpunished violation of the separation of church and state). The tea party and other conservative groups have been trying to paint the deist founding fathers as some sort of Christians. Just isn’t so. That religious freedom (including from it) was one of the reasons (after economic independence) for breaking with England in the first place is something they are trying to re-write. It’s Orwellian. It’s justified by being “what God wants.”

There are legitimate religious affiliated charities, true. The question I think the atheists and others are putting is, would the removal of the religious affiliation prevent the charity from doing its work?

I do agree that even without religion we would still be violent, still be looking for any and all advantage over the “other”. I think Scott would agree on that as well. Seems to be his main point: we have evolutionary tendencies. But that is science again and a branch of science that even now, in the 21st century, is being denied exactly how described in the original post at top, largely based on how it conflicts with previously firmly held beliefs, most of them religious in nature.

And that underlines the question: are we capable of “handling” science? Capable of, when we can come to agree reasonably that what it is telling us is true, of dealing with that and acting appropriately?

Speaking of which, the paragraph that I don’t understand, especially the sentence: “Meaning skepticism is the big one.” This is shorthand, I assume for readers who have followed longer than I, who have, for example read more of Roger. I can’t parse that sentence. The fact that consciousness may be a construct means that skepticism is as well, causing some kind of logic loop, or just not being able to accept that consciousness is “fake” means accepting that meaning is too?

Maybe it’s okay to accept it and also accept that we are going to assign meaning to things even after we decide that it’s an illusion. The delusion of believing your car is going to get you to work every single day is not a problem until the day that it doesn’t. You call a tow truck. You get it fixed. You restore the illusion after the memory fades a bit. Life goes on.

Doesn’t work with climate change, I grant you. Waiting until it’s really beating our door down probably means too late to reverse (but then I heard today that we cracked photsynthesis… Who knew?).

I’m not saying religion is inherently good or bad. I’m noting that the conflict with religion is really a conflict with values where religion, by virtue of its age and place in history, often ends up on the reactionary side.

I readily agree that one should not be deciding public policy because stuff people wrote 2,000 years ago about homosexuality. But thinking that the source of the conflict is with religion means the problem is irrational belief.

But acknowledging that opens up a larger can of worms, because most of us don’t have enough knowledge about economics+law+internat’l politics+etc to understand what happens in the global sphere.

Even beyond that, we believe things we can’t explain – see the conflict in Proyas, where his feelings of guilt about abandoning Akka are seen, by him, to be irrational. We can see, oh he’s accessing the true morality that rises above the prejudice of his scripture…but then where does that true morality come from? Why would US Aid to Africa be a rational act? Why would saving endangered non-humans be rational? Why can’t you cheat on your spouse, if no one ever finds out and thus no one is harmed?

Yeah, which brings us back I think to neuroscience. Empathy is independent of religion, it’s something hard-wired. Certainly seems that it can be programmed (thinking of the slaver captain who was such a bastard that his own crew broke his legs and threw him overboard; he survived and went on to write “Amazing Grace,” spent the rest of his life an abolitionist), but who gets to decide when and how to lmplement that? A morality pill? Tortured to conformity?

The fact that it’s brain wiring makes it difficult to come up with a secular humanist reasoned argument for the Golden Rule. But then we have religion and the golden rule gets broken all the time and often by the people who most like laying claim to being in God’s favor.

He literally believes he has the most powerful three pound brain in the universe.

Oh, Scott, you’re such a shameless liar. Can anyone wonder why I repeatedly call you out for being a charlatan and intellectually dishonest? I wasn’t even the second-smartest one in a house I shared with three other guys after college. I just believe, with considerable supporting evidence, that I’m much smarter than you and Delavagus. You guys are so dumb that you will blatantly lie about things that anyone can easily check and confirm to be false. And you assert that I’m delusional?

In other words, even though scientific claims have transformed the world, even though they seem to possess every theoretical virtue we know of (short of flattering our parochial preconceptions), we should suspend our commitment to them on the basis of a prior commitment to one out of hundreds of armchair claims regarding What Science Is—which, by some happy coincidence, happens to flatter this or that parochial preconception.

As is so often the case, you understand nothing. You’re committing Daniel Dennett’s logical error: we should trust biologists because physicists have produced very accurate results. Simply because one scientific claim has transformed the world does not meant that ALL OTHER SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS should be trusted. This is especially true considering that for every scientific claim that has transformed the world, there are multiple scientific claims that were subsequently proven to be false or even fraudulent. This logic holds regardless of the science skeptic’s motivation for doubting the scientific claim.

At this point, I’m inclined to simply take him as ‘Exhibit A’ of human irrationality. Some, in the jungle that has overrun the comment thread on the previous post, have suggested that I’m ‘running scared’ and the fact is, I am. But from what he represents, not what he ‘argues.’

Of course you are. You’re running scared because I have consistently exposed your cowardice, your dishonesty, and your inability to reason your way out of a paper bag. You’re desperate to avoid direct engagement because you know I’ll kick your ass even worse than I kicked Delavagus’s. People have been telling you almost from the start that you have gotten me all wrong, but you keep doubling down again and again on your original position… because you are a complete fraud when it comes to your Uncertainty Doctrine.

By the time this ends, absolutely no one will take any of your claims seriously, because you’ll have stripped every last pretense of intellectual integrity from yourself.

Vox, I’ve said this to you before, so I’m not sure why I should expect a different result (i.e., that you’ll actually notice your mistake), but there’s a big difference between ‘being wrong’ and ‘lying.’ Moreover, there’s an even BIGGER difference between ‘you, Vox, thinking someone is wrong’ and that person ‘lying.’

Somewhere between the two lies the difference between ‘exaggerating for emphasis’ and ‘lying,’ and it was the former that Scott was actually doing (as any good reader would know — I mean, really, ‘in the universe’?!).

Anyway. So you think you’ve ‘kicked my ass,’ huh? Sigh. At some point I will lower myself to read the rest of your ‘dissections’ [sic]. I’m just too damn busy to do it now. But in the meantime, since you’ve officially ‘kicked the ass’ of my interpretation of Sextus (though note that in my two posts on the TPB I made NO attempt to justify my interpretation on textual grounds, i.e., to justify it as an interpretation of Sextus, so you actually don’t know what my view is qua exegetical), surely you can now summarize the view as I presented it. I would be most interested to see you try.

Everything of yours I’ve read so far has led me to conclude that (a) you’re not a good reader of texts (in fact, you’re particularly bad at it), and (b) you don’t understand the skeptical views you claim to have proven wrong (if only because you’re not interested in understanding them, only in ‘proving them wrong,’ i.e., in seeming to your ideologically blinkered readers to have proven them wrong).

So please, if you’re so darn smart, take a moment and demonstrate to me (it ought to be easy for you!) that you understand the view. If you can do that, I would be much more inclined to take the time to read the rest of your ‘dissections’ [sic].

Moreover, there’s an even BIGGER difference between ‘you, Vox, thinking someone is wrong’ and that person ‘lying.’

Of course there is. But when you say X = Not X, and you also provide reason to believe that you know perfectly well what X is, then it’s readily apparent you are lying.

Somewhere between the two lies the difference between ‘exaggerating for emphasis’ and ‘lying,’ and it was the former that Scott was actually doing (as any good reader would know — I mean, really, ‘in the universe’?!).

Scott has been lying for the past eight months. He’s not merely lying literally, what you fail to understand is that the point he is “exaggerating for emphasis” is entirely false. This is something that several people besides me have attempted to point out to him, but he clings stubbornly to his original impressions.

Anyway. So you think you’ve ‘kicked my ass,’ huh? Sigh. At some point I will lower myself to read the rest of your ‘dissections’ [sic]. I’m just too damn busy to do it now. But in the meantime, since you’ve officially ‘kicked the ass’ of my interpretation of Sextus (though note that in my two posts on the TPB I made NO attempt to justify my interpretation on textual grounds, i.e., to justify it as an interpretation of Sextus, so you actually don’t know what my view is qua exegetical), surely you can now summarize the view as I presented it. I would be most interested to see you try.

Oh, I’m far from the only one who thinks that. There isn’t a single person who has read the series that has claimed that any of your ten errors were not, in fact, errors.

Everything of yours I’ve read so far has led me to conclude that (a) you’re not a good reader of texts (in fact, you’re particularly bad at it), and (b) you don’t understand the skeptical views you claim to have proven wrong (if only because you’re not interested in understanding them, only in ‘proving them wrong,’ i.e., in seeming to your ideologically blinkered readers to have proven them wrong).

That’s nice. Everything I’ve read of yours demonstrates that you’re dishonest, prone to swapping one definition with another as it suits you at the moment, and inclined to distort what the ancient skeptics wrote in order to provide false support for your modern views. Obviously one of us is wrong. There is considerable documentary evidence for people to consider and I’m perfectly content letting them examine that evidence and reach their own conclusions.

So please, if you’re so darn smart, take a moment and demonstrate to me (it ought to be easy for you!) that you understand the view. If you can do that, I would be much more inclined to take the time to read the rest of your ‘dissections’ [sic].

No. I don’t care if you read it or not. I find it amusing that put scare quotes around the word “dissections” in the very same sentence that you admit you have not read them. How very academic of you. Like Scott, you’re not merely an intellectual fraud, you’re an inept one.

If you wish to defend your posts, I’ll give you all the space you want. If you can successfully demonstrate that your 10 errors are not errors and that your conclusions are not false, I’ll absolutely note the corrections on my posts. And if you don’t wish to bother, that’s fine too. It never bothers me in the slightest to see people turn tail and run rather than defend their claims, I find it highly entertaining.

Simply because one scientific claim has transformed the world does not meant that ALL OTHER SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS should be trusted. This is especially true considering that for every scientific claim that has transformed the world, there are multiple scientific claims that were subsequently proven to be false or even fraudulent.

Uhm, this is part of the scientific process. Science is a process to find truth, is not the truth. All scientific claims are valid only as long they aren’t proven wrong, so it’s always a temporary condition.

Scott says exactly this: Science is not relevant because it makes claims, but because it can disprove a number of them.

So Science is only relevant because it can “trim” the claim-making. It’s a tool that reduces the entropy in the system.

I also think it’s a platitude that each of those religions has adherents, like Vox, claiming ‘indisputable evidence’ that always turns out to be quite disputable indeed.

I have never claimed that Christianity possesses “indisputable evidence”. Indeed, to the contrary, I have shown that Christianity makes several claims that are perfectly falsifiable. Eliminate poverty, produce the bones of Jesus Christ, or simply lead a sinless life – sin being defined as per the Bible – and you will succeed in having proven Christianity false.

Scott is talking about how Vox has established an epistemic foundation on the circular argument, “I know I’m always right because I know I’m smarter than everyone, and I know I’m smarter than everyone because I know I’m always right.” When dealing with someone who takes a fact’s conformation to her preconceptions as a necessary condition for truth, rational discourse is literally impossible, and need not be attempted.

And Scott is full of shit. I don’t claim to be always right, in fact, I have noted a few of my past errors here on TPB. Nor do I believe I am smarter than everyone else. But I have repeatedly proven that Scott, Delavagus, and others are incorrect as well as provided considerable evidence that I am, in fact, much smarter than they are, given my ability to show their errors in their own areas of supposed expertise. Does anyone seriously believe either of them could return the favor in the realm of economics?

Being smarter than someone else can help you be right more often, just as having a larger engine will help your car go faster. He does not believe that his intelligence automatically makes him correct.

It can. I actually tend to view intelligence as firepower. The more you have, the more devastating the effect when you concentrate it. But you still need an amount of wisdom to effectively direct that firepower, and sadly, I think it can be easily argued that I don’t possess an unusual amount of that.

Yeah, somewhatstaid, VD doesn’t say he’s right! He says he reads a book on a plane, and then he’s right! You really don’t understand!

I can only imagine that he experiences some kind of perverse pleasure at his ability to phrase rational arguments in such a way that others will find themselves unable to accept them.

Well, I am an Award-Winning Cruelty Artist. I, and many of my readers, never cease to find amusement in watching the maleducated fall into the trap of “correcting” a nonexistent error. I don’t expect “charitable” readings of my columns, quite the opposite, in fact, so I habitually set traps that will catch and expose the too-eager critic. Of course, that’s not even necessary with the likes of Scott.

Vox, however, is going to make a big deal of Mr. Bakker’s attempt to incorporate mathematics into science

Well, I would have if he had. But he didn’t do so, he only made a statement about science being “the most transformative claim-making institution in human history”. While math is a more reliable claim-making institution it would be hard to claim it is a more transformative one, and furthermore, one can’t say that Bakker asserted that math is a subset of science.

Others may have, but if so, they’re dumb enough as not to require any more response than a noisy kitten. Math is not science by any definition of science except the archaic and uselessly broad one that means nothing more than “knowledge”.

Of course it is. It’s no more or less falsifiable than the existence of Saturn itself. You clearly don’t understand Popper’s metric if you are under the impression that falsifiability depends upon the ease with which a proposition can be falsified or not. The point is that Christianity, as well as some other religions, are falsifiable even if the general existence of God does not appear to be at the moment, given our present technological limitations.

Those conditions are either practically unfalsifiable or eliminated by question begging. None of them are experiments that can be run and observed. The bones of a man named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago might be dust. It may not be possible to eliminate poverty given the current resources of the world, and it is impossible to live a “sinless” life by Christian standards for a glaring reason. (I won’t spoil the fun by giving it away.)

Yes, it’s possible that we may stumble on Jesus’s bones one day, but it’s a black swan type scenario.

I have shown that Christianity makes several claims that are perfectly falsifiable… []…lead a sinless life – sin being defined as per the Bible – and you will succeed in having proven Christianity false.

Theodore; please explain to the class the problem with this statement.

I’d imagine everyone else has got it, but it wil be more fun if you do it…

Vox, I had been curious about your arguments against Delvagus’ posts on Pyrrhonism, so I finally went and read your refutation, and am I ever glad I did! As ever, the sheer weight of your “superintelligence” is awe inspiring. Heavy indeed. It is swollen; turgid; hugely, grotesquely obese; fat beyond all reckoning. I know that I can already feel my lungs crushed inside my thoracic cavity at the mere thought of having the huge ass of your intellect settle even one cheek on my poor corporeal form.

I encourage everyone who has not done so to follow that link that Vox so thoughtfully provided again and again and again, and quake at the gelatinous folds of Vox’s crushing logic. A quick read–neigh, even a glance–will surely put matters to rest at once in every capable mind, and irrevocably sort the chaff from the wheat, so to speak. I can only hope that it will also end this futile debate once and for all.

Vox, I know that I can never hope to drag myself to the level of one of your vaunted Dread Ilk; I merely beg you for the merest nod of your bulbous cranium in my direction and some sort of personal attack on my own mediocre capacities. I would then find my day complete.

VD,No, I read a book on a plane, wrote a few thousand words specifying
You’re again the sole interpretor of whether writing alot of words counts for much.the ten errors committed by Delavagus as well as the falsity of his conclusions,
And appoint yourself the sole interpretor of what is an error.and numerous readers have agreed that I was right
Again you’re the sole interpretor of the value of this asserted statistic.while no one, even Delavagus, has dared to claim that those ten errors were not, in fact, errors or that his conclusions was not false.
And you appoint yourself the sole interpreter of their motivations (You haven’t bothered to argue against acrackedmoon on ‘requires only hate’ – so you don’t dare to claim she’s wrong)

It’s like you can’t even get to the theoretical construct stage. Chess is not real – but if in describing it’s rules someone argues “Actually a castle piece can move in diagnals or even up and down in three dimensions (and that the piece is a small piece of plastic, hardly an actual castle)”, their mind is simply not capable of reaching a theoretical construct stage. Atleast not at that point. Maybe never – hopefully not.

Chess is not real, but it’s not real rules work logically in regard to each other. Even when you read fantasy novels, you do not argue ‘hey, this world isn’t real – how stupid is this author, none of these cities exist, nor do elves!’. No. You take on board the construct – at the very least not making stupid assertions like ‘hey, this world isn’t real!’. Internal inconsistancy in a novel? See below.

Call it a fantasy as much as you need to, but reach the theoretical construct stage and realise in this construct (or ‘fantasy’, if you desperately need those words) there is a claim making institution who’s ratio of claims that end in a device that forfils the claim kicks the ass of all the other claim making institutions. And in this construct, engineers don’t make claims, they merely believe (upon reviewing experiments run by the claim making institution, repeated thousands of times that reach the same result) the claims and physical experiments of this claim making institution. In this construct they end up making computers, mobile phones, atom bombs and even genetic modification equipment.

ASK about the rules of the construct. Do not tell us the constructs rules – you are not it’s author. Look for ways in which, unlike chess, the constructs rules do not work logically together. If you think you see an internal inconsistancy in it’s rules, describe it.

Atleast get to the theoretical construct stage instead of pissing about in the ‘Naw, that so called castle piece can move in any direction – see!’/further fucking about with definitions. That’s the literalism of children.

It’s like you can’t even get to the theoretical construct stage. Chess is not real – but if in describing it’s rules someone argues “Actually a castle piece can move in diagnals or even up and down in three dimensions (and that the piece is a small piece of plastic, hardly an actual castle)”, their mind is simply not capable of reaching a theoretical construct stage.

Right… you’re seriously going to claim that a game and technology designer can’t reach a theoretical construct stage. That’s ludicrous. Your problem is that you’re not understanding the situation here. To use your analogy, the rules of chess are the writings of Sextus Empiricus. Continuing with the analogy, Delavagus wrote a piece purporting to be a defense and explication of the rules of chess, although he subsequently declared that it was only his interpretation of those rules.

What I did was compare the written rules of chess to Delavagus’s interpretation of those rules and point out that it is not true that White can never win because Black rooks can move four squares diagonally, for the obvious reason that the rules of chess prohibit rooks of either color from moving diagonally.

Now, based on what you’re saying here, Delavagus must not be “capable of reaching a theoretical construct stage”. I disagree. I think he was simply being dishonest because he never suspected that anyone at TPB would actually read Sextus and call him out on his egregious errors and/or falsehoods which are readily apparent when comparing his claims about Pyrrhonism and the actual Pyhrronian texts.

Initially, this feels like the response of a kindergarden kid to an adult, a kid which blatantly states that he will “kick the adults ass” if they ever got to confront (verbally I assume) each other.

…or is it something far more clever? The response of someone with a smattering of SEO who has realised that heated blog debates will result in more hits and exposure for his own platform?

I’m seriously wondering how many more unique visitors is Vox getting from this back-and-forth, at the expense of Bakker’s concentration to his latest book perhaps?

If I was to view this in a derogatory manner I would ask:

What could be more interesting that reading the {Rants||Views||Posts} of a “funamentalist Southern Baptist” / writer / computer game designer / “Christian Libertarian commentator” / musician who claims to be a “superintelligence”? Seriously, you have to TRY to come up with a character like this.

If I was to view this as logically as I could, I would state that:

Mr Beale has fully understood the way the internets work, and has identified the fact that various “extreme” or “out-there” comments (including trolling) in whichever place will accept and debate them, results in more exposure to his main channel of information -> his blog.

If Scott was up for a quick social experiment, I would suggest the following:

1. Remove all links to Vox’s blog whatsoever from all posts (new and old)
2. Do not refer / write about him at all for a period of 3 months (say August?)

Something tells me that if the above experiment was conducted, we would most probably see a few caustic remarks (even a whole blog post) by Vox, name-calling Bakker and his work.

Initially, this feels like the response of a kindergarden kid to an adult, a kid which blatantly states that he will “kick the adults ass” if they ever got to confront (verbally I assume) each other.

It may feel that way. Of course, if you examine the various claims, I can support all of them with evidence. Scott, on the other hand, cannot.

I’m seriously wondering how many more unique visitors is Vox getting from this back-and-forth, at the expense of Bakker’s concentration to his latest book perhaps?

I imagine Scott’s the only one getting a bit more traffic. I’m actually down about a thousand readers per day since some of my readers find it tedious when I go into my deceased equine abuse mode. The Summer of the Great Japanese Naval Invasion Debate is still mentioned in hushed and fearful tones by some of the longtime Dread Ilk. Or, it could just be that summer is nigh. Regardless, the upcoming inflation vs deflation debate will get far more traffic than Pyrrhonism or Uncertainty. And given that I turn down requests for TV and radio interviews on a regular basis, I think it’s fairly obvious that I’m not terribly concerned about blog traffic.

Something tells me that if the above experiment was conducted, we would most probably see a few caustic remarks (even a whole blog post) by Vox, name-calling Bakker and his work.

You’re wrong. I don’t pay Scott, or pretty much anyone else, any attention unless they’re challenging me. But someone always is, it comes with the territory. I’m a little different than the average commentator in that I try to give everyone a chance to take their shot. I could certainly do what nearly all my media peers do and strike the “I’m too important” pose, but I think that’s nonsense.

I wouldn’t agree VD is doing it for traffic. Indeed I’d agree it more brings traffic here. Instead, I hypothesize that when he’s preaching to his choir, it all feels a bit…empty. The only time the preaching feels really right (surprisingly) is when he slaying a dragon* and ‘proving them wrong’ does it feel really, really right. Almost as if right somehow becomes even more right at those points (but then fades back as they return to the choir). It’s the defeat of an enemy, the kicking of ass, that is integral part of being right – how would you kick their ass if you weren’t right, after all? The actual reasoning asserted is more of a secondary priority. It’s a bit like a wookie sitting down to a chess board and tearing off the other guys arms – who’s gunna say the wookie didn’t win the chess game, eh? The piece moving is pretty secondary and why not, when everyone says you won, eh? Well, everyone who wants to keep their arms…

* If I didn’t put this subnote in, then you’d get a ‘I’d hardly call Scott a dragon, more a (insert derogative)’. I bet almost have the words dead on – it’s rather like when you second guess dialog in a movie before a character says it.

The third criterion I would suggest is look for cross-pollinated, “biased,” beliefs, those that are causally linked across disciplines that should not inform one another. A political belief should not inform a scientific belief. While a religious belief can legitimately inform a political belief, it probably shouldn’t intrude on political theory, etc. This is a notoriously contentious area, as evidenced by “liberal bias” in media and academia, accurate or not. Why are many libertarians global warming deniers? Why should libertarian belief inform an opinion on climate science when the percent of deniers can’t possibly match the percent who are climate scientists or even remotely know what they’re talking about?

I am a global warming believer but I think there’s an important flaw in this argument. A political belief should not inform scientific knowledge, but in practice it pretty much has to inform scientific belief.

This is because we frequently have to act on beliefs that we do not have the opportunity to verify, and which side we take depends on who we trust, and who we trust depends on who seems to align with the beliefs that we already have. This naturally causes us to clump into factions whose beliefs appear to be politically motivated.

I don’t have time to study climate science, only to glance over the arguments and results and the people and institutions which hold each position and think about who looks trustworthy. I then make my political decision on the basis of this best guess, which is already partly informed by my previously held political position. Since I already lean toward very ‘green’ policies, I am easy to persuade and there’s no incentive for me to look deeply or critically. I clearly don’t have knowledge, but I do have a provisional belief, which influences my vote. But someone starting from the other side might use the same process and come out with the opposite conclusion, because they believe that, e.g. climate scientists are tree huggers, and therefore not trustworthy, and therefore they might well have fudged their data.

The problem here is a big one for democracy. In the absence of firm knowledge, voters have no choice but to rely on mere signals, and signals are easy to game.

Come on Vox. You’re just a meat bag with a shaky grasp on reality, just like the rest of us. Your lack of humility in the face of the complexities that surround us just highlights how obtuse you are. Point scoring does nothing to address any of the issues brought up on this blog, but does tend to confirm them (BBH, rationalization machine etc…).

On another note: This particular barbarian is getting restless. Scott any update on The Unholy Consult? Must get me some more old man Acha kickassery 

Is this post some kind of coda? Because, Scott, I also want to suggest directly that we have some more Earwa stuff. It’s mildly interesting to discuss these things, but the gains seem marginal to you more than anyone.

Fans want information on the Inchie brothers and the Well of the Aborted, the nature of Ciphrang, etc. You can even tie in a lot of philosophy and other academic disciplines, as we’ve tried to do on Westeros.

The conversations with Vox seem to have amounted to very little, and barring a formal debate I see it continuing to yield little and less.

Even your reminiscing about playing D&D in Earwa (with your brother right? See, Sci cares!) would be throwing your fans a bone.

I was obviously caricaturing religion, government, and business in my original post. I don’t actually think those institutions are necessarily ‘bad’ (whatever the hell that means) but I was making a point about the CLAIMS they make. That is, when an institution OTHER THAN SCIENCE makes a TRUTH CLAIM, you need to be extremely skeptical.

This does not invalidate all the good work that people in business, government, and religion do. I like business, I think the road to world peace will be paved in dollars and cents. I like government. Governments coordinate business, science, industry and create social structures that are necessary for scientific progress in the first place. Religion I’m not particularly keen on, but I do understand its value as a social institution that promotes cohesion, consensus, and recovery from social ills such as addiction.

The minute the claims of one of these institutions clashes with science, just think about their respective track records, and think about which institutions is more likely to be trying to manipulate you and turn you into a tool.

Ah, religion as institution I can agree has serious flaws. But I think what I, and Vox, are critiquing is this idea that atheism suddenly situates one in a realm of rational beliefs and values that are derived via reason.

Seems to me anything we’d refer to as morality that goes outside of self-interest or perpetuating one’s genes remains just as illogically supernatural as ever until we hit the Semantic Apocalypse via designer neuroscience.

Yes, that’s where Dawkins and company erred. When they labelled themselves ”brights” as if to insinuate that anyone that didn’t share their (lack of) belief was somehow dumb.

saajanpatel wrote:
“anything we’d refer to as morality that goes outside of self-interest or perpetuating one’s genes remains just as illogically supernatural as ever”

I disagree.

I don’t go out and murder people. I occasionally help those less fortunate. I don’t believe in any Judgment beyond that of men, and that is SUFFICIENT to explain both my behavior and the “warm fuzzy” feeling I get when I do something good. What DIES with the reductionist approach is the idea that this “warm fuzzy” has any MEANING. I we were all Inchoroi or Neuropath the universe would not care one whit about it. Scott does not like this position, since it means that immoral acts are fundamentally no different than moral ones.

I love this position*.

It was Howard Phillip Lovecraft’s position.

We live in a merciless, meaningless, uncaring universe. Anything expectation beyond that is supernatural, and I personally disagree with it vehemently. That doesn’t mean I won’t recycle or help my neighbor out in times of trouble.

*With the caveat that I do think there is one philosophical refuge for magical thinking (the Hard Problem), but this niche is rapidly shrinking.

We live in a merciless, meaningless, uncaring universe.
You hypothesise.

Not that I don’t tend to bet on that hypothesis myself. But it’s wondering about something else, something other, that leads one to invent moralities/moral codes which are something other than merciless, meaningless or uncaring. Like recycling…oh actually, Pen and Teller debunked that as well – which even they seemed unhappy about! But helping your neighbour, sharing resources and such.

Of course such wondering also led to the nazi’s. So, wonder is both terror and womb. On the other hand, Indiana Jones would have had no colourful enemy to fight without the nazi’s, so thoughts on both sides…😉

Religion I’m not particularly keen on, but I do understand its value as a social institution that promotes cohesion, consensus, and recovery from social ills such as addiction.

But then you understand the whole point.

The main goal of religion (usually) is to reduce certain differences. It’s again a tool to reduce the complexity.

How are you able to coordinate a whole population, with each having his own view and contrasting desires? You need some codes, some rules. These rules need to be based on some common sense. Or shared values.

The most effective tool you have to spread this system of rules and values is (or was historically): religion. That’s how you reach out quickly and effectively.

One who understands religion doesn’t expect “truth”. He expects simply an improvement of the community’s life.

It’s not IMPORTANT that a certain belief is actually “true”. It’s important that it has a specific purpose that leads to an improvement of the life condition in that community.

What you rely on is the “faith” on the fact that a certain belief is intimately, mysteriously linked to some actual benefit. These patterns are hidden, in religion.

Say for example forbidding to eat pork. They may tell you it’s unholy. It’s not “true”, but it is true that it’s connected to certain patterns that are (true).

I tend to have this same approach to Scott’s theory of consciousness: that our perception, like religion, is not “true”, but it could still be “hiddenly” connected with something that works. Or the whole deal with “isomorphism”.

I don’t think this is your strongest defense against Vox’s responses. In particular, he is holding you to a very high standard of precision, a level of precision that is probably beyond the scope of two blog posts. I think you could easily resolve many of the errors he identifies if you hold yourself to a high level of precision and also actually know what you are talking about. You may find his approach uncharitable, but its the only way to communicate to the intelligent but non experts.

Further, you do not seem to grasp Vox’s objections. First, he accepts a lot of skeptical arguments, just not to the extent that you argue for in your posts. As such, he wants to hold you accountable for overextending. Secondly, he immediately understood what you only got around to at the end of your second post, that we use “knowledge” to refer to more than the strict sense of knowledge philosophers hold them to. But neither he nor I are interested in “Properly reflective, reasonable, philosophical knowledge” and never claim to have it. Only you, the philosopher, cares about it. If anything, the arguments you outline should lead you to give up this overly restrictive intuition of knowledge for a broader, weaker one.

Also, why do you write “[sic]” after the word “dissections”? That’s how it’s spelled.

“…he is holding you to a very high standard of precision, a level of precision that is probably beyond the scope of two blog posts…”
“…you could easily resolve many of the errors he identifies if you hold yourself to a high level of precision and also actually know what you are talking about…”

“But neither he nor I are interested in “Properly reflective, reasonable, philosophical knowledge” and never claim to have it. ”

This strikes me as odd. On the one hand you are crying out for precision and high standards and on the other hand you are not interested in strict definitions. You claim to be a mathematican, so shouldn’t you be on the side of the philosophical definition and not on the sloppy dictionary “definitions”, that Vox has given in his rants? Isn’t this kind of…well …ridiculous?

And the whole justified-true-believe thing isn’t something that’s too complex for non experts to understand, esecially for a MATHEMATICIAN and a SUPER INTELLIGENCE.

I don’t even understand all this bickering over words and definitions. Shouldn’t it be more like this:

A: …’knowledge’
B: [insert insult] Your way of using ‘knowledge’ confuses me. [insert insult]
A: I define it as justified true believe.
B: [insert insult] No, you can’t do that. Because it is not in the dictionary. [insert insult]
This definition is only for philosophers! [insert insult]
A: [insert insult]
B: [insert insult]
….

The second discussion leads to NOTHING. Except WANT it this way. I know that Vox (there is enough evidence on his blog and this one*), does, but do you?

*e.g.:
“The Summer of the Great Japanese Naval Invasion Debate is still mentioned in hushed and fearful tones by some of the longtime Dread Ilk. ”
Fearful tones is what his style of discussion is about, not about being right or wrong.

If something strikes you as odd, it’s generally a good idea to stop, reread and carefully try to figure out what his argument actually is. Because you have not understood what I wrote.

Vox and I are happy to stick to the definition of knowledge as JTB. But he also pointed out that this is not the only possible definitions of knowledge. He lists 9 from the dictionary that have nothing to do with JTB but there could be an infinite number of other definitions.

He also pointed out that if we are arguing according to a specific definition of knowledge, our conclusions only apply to things that meet that definition. In particular, if we conclude something about JTBs, we cannot automatically conclude the same thing about merely true beliefs or information. That is an error caused by a lack of precision or uncharitably termed bait and switch by Vox.

Further, we can have a second argument over whether JTB is even a good definition of knowledge. Neither I nor Vox believe it is. In particular, it is overly restrictive. Moreover, since neither of us ascribes to this definition in our daily lives, when we say we know something, we are not claiming to have justified true beliefs.

“In particular, if we conclude something about JTBs, we cannot automatically conclude the same thing about merely true beliefs or information. ”

Absolutely right. But if you catch someone automatically concluding things, this is a matter of logic and an error, which is easy to point out.
I wasn’t really arguing against pointing out errors, but more against doing it the WAY it is done. In a rational discussion I think there is no room for such a condescending and insulting tone, that is common in debates, where Vox is involved.
The other thing is, that Vox’s tactics are just about FINDING errors, not about making them clear and discuss, what is really of substance.
Even THIS would be more accebtable if he wouldn’t make the same mistakes:

From “Dissecting the sceptics I” (one little thing: ‘a sceptic’ instead of ‘the sceptics’ would be more appropriate, given that there is more than one kind of sceptic):
”
“My name’s Roger Eichorn. I’m a friend of Scott’s, an aspiring fantasy novelist, and a Ph.D. student in philosophy at the University of Chicago. My primary area of specialization is ancient skepticism, particularly the Pyrrhonism of Sextus Empiricus.”

So what does this tell us? He’s educated, he’s inexperienced, he’s at least moderately intelligent, he’s a wannabee, he’s a larval academic, and like most would-be novelists, he’s probably got at least a bit of a superiority complex. ”

“when we say we know something, we are not claiming to have justified true beliefs.”

When you say you know something. Are you not claiming that it is true? That would be weird (but possible).

When you say you know something. Are you not claiming that you believe, what you know? This would be paradox and in at least one way I know a contradiction.

When you say you know something. Are you not claiming that it is justified? Given, that you all are explaing a lot, this all seem like justifiing your “knowledge”. Isn’t Vox the one always talking about “evidence”?

So if you agree with all these points all you can do is make the definition more strict. E.g. Solutions for the Gettier problem.

If there is a flaw, please feel free to point it out. I’d be happy. Seriously.

To start with, it’s wrong to shout fallacy here. Vox isn’t arguing, he is profiling Delavagus as a way to help himself interpret the arguments and to identify places where D is likely to make mistakes. He is very careful to not claim D actually has made an error until he actually identifies one.

Further, your conception of rational debate is more about enforcing social norms of niceness than about actually being rational. Niceness can be counter productive, because some people abuse this by making wildly wrong claims and then their opponents never call them out on it because it wouldn’t be nice to do so. The former are often called “charlatans” or “sophists”. These people most certainly should be attacked without mercy, otherwise they will continue to spread their idiocy and hide behind the charity of their opponents. In particular, Vox feels that Scott and Delavagus are charlatans and so is addressing them in this manner.

“….then their opponents never call them out on it because it wouldn’t be nice to do so.”

Sorry, but the fault isn’t with the one making wild claims, but with the ones, that never calls them out, just to be nice.

“Vox isn’t arguing, he is profiling Delavagus as a way to help himself interpret the arguments and to identify places where D is likely to make mistakes.”

So when debating with Vox you should know, when he really means something and when he says something just do …well what? You say ‘interpret’ but more appropriate would be ‘DISCREDIT’.
When you are really interested in discussion, the person, who is making the claims in OF NO INTEREST. JUST THE CLAIMS THEMSELF!
Otherwise: Fallacy!

When I say Vox has the same rhetoric as Hitler, I could also defend myself by saying I do it “as a way to help himself interpret the arguments and to identify places where he is likely to make mistakes.” But, come on. This is nonsence.

That you continue to shout “fallacy!” indicates you are either disingenuous or lacking in reading comprehension. There are several paragraphs of context for Vox’s statement which make it clear he is describing his thought process, which includes answering four preliminary reading comprehension questions. That he thinks Delavagus is likely to make mistakes is a preliminary judgement and he clearly states that he has not identified any yet. But then he does go through the posts and identify errors, which you think is perfectly fine.

Secondly, it’s a little curious that you think “rational debate” must be both rational and non insulting. Wouldnt this be “rational, non insulting debate”? Why do we need to be anything more than rational? My guess it that you don’t like having your errors thrown back in your face, don’t want to face the fact that you are wrong, don’t want to admit that Vox is probably in the right here, and dont like the discomfort of cognitive dissonance and so try to blame that discomfort on Vox being insulting. Further, the aversion to insults is completely on your side; I don’t really care if someone insults me; it doesn’t affect my ability to think clearly.

At this point, I think it would be much more interesting to go back to discussing whether JTB is a good definition of knowledge.

On the subject of JTB, I’d first like to state that I don’t find the belief paradigm very compelling. That is, to say I know something does not mean I have a particular belief.

To say, “I know how to fix a car engine” or “I know how to play soccer” or “I know calculus” don’t really correlate to beliefs. These statements can mean that I possess some information, like engine specs, the rules of soccer, or various theorems. It can mean that I have the potential to act in a certain way, like actually fixing an engine, actually stepping into a game of soccer and actually solving a derivative problem. it can also mean understanding, as in I understand how to apply the various principles of engine mechanics, soccer or calculus.

I should point out that there is a difference between knowing and claiming to know. The latter clearly entails a belief while I don’t think the former does. So, we could extract beliefs from each of the above sentences because they are claims, but if you know something and don’t claim to know it, is there really a belief there?

Sometimes yes, but it doesn’t have to be completely true. Take the balls and stick model of molecules. They certainly represent knowledge and understanding, but are simplifications and are not really true, just kind of true in that they are useful for some purposes.

Fallacy remains fallcy no matter what the context. And since it does in no way proof his points against D, it’s just used as a rhetoric way to put D in a bad light. That he hides/you hide this by saying, that this is “profiling”, that “he is describing his thought process”, doesn’t make it any less a tool for manipulation. It’s like a wolf hiding under a sheepskin.

“you don’t want to admit that Vox is probably in the right here”

I admit that there is the possibility, that Vox is right.

“I should point out that there is a difference between knowing and claiming to know. ”

When you are only knowing something (as opposed to claiming to know), and you are asked, what you know. Wouldn’s this come down to claiming to know something?

“if you know something and don’t claim to know it, is there really a belief there?”

Yes, I think so.

“They certainly represent knowledge and understanding, but are simplifications and are not really true, just kind of true in that they are useful for some purposes.”

It represents knowledge, but it is not really true?
Are you saying you don’t find the truth paradigm of JTB very compelling?

“To say, “I know how to fix a car engine” or “I know how to play soccer” or “I know calculus” don’t really correlate to beliefs. These statements can mean that I possess some information…”

Lets make this perfectly clear. With the phrase ‘I know how to do something’ you are referring, as you pointed out to a catalog of informations.

You can spip this if you like.
[Ergo: ‘I know how to do something’ means the same as ‘I know that, in order to do something you have to do the following…’

So with ‘I know how to fix a car engine’ you imply ‘I know that, in order to fix a car engine you have to do x’ (x being the instruction to fix the car)

Assumption 1: I don’t think that ‘I know how to fix a car engine’ correlates bith a believe.
Assumption 2: ‘I know how to fix a car engine’ means the same as ‘I know that, in order to fix a car engine you have to do x’]

Your Conclusion: I don’t think that ‘I know that, in order to fix a car engine you have to do x’ correlates with a believe.

But I think knowing how to fix a car engine correlates with the believe that, in order to fix the car engine you have to do x.

It’s the same with ‘I know how to play soccer’ and ‘I know calculus’.

Keeping in mind, that the critique of Vox (and yourself?) is, that JBT isn’t about the common use of ‘x knows A’. In other words, you want this to be about the common understanding of knowledge.
I think the COMMON way to respond to the questions from my previous post is to agree with them and admit to JBT.

Sorry, this got longer than I intended and I hope this doesn’t make it more confusing.

When you are only knowing something (as opposed to claiming to know), and you are asked, what you know. Wouldn’s this come down to claiming to know something?

Yes, by definition. But recall the famous Rumsfeld taxonomy of (un)known (un)knowns. One quadrant represents “unknown knowns,” things we know but are unaware that we know. In this case, you might (incorrectly) answer that you did not in fact know it.

Are you saying you don’t find the truth paradigm of JTB very compelling?

In a sense, yes. There are beliefs that are technically false but do represent knowledge. For instance, the widespread belief in Europe through the 17th century that “All swans are white.” While we now know this to be false, that it accurately describes the swans in Europe should make it considered knowledge. It certainly is better than a random belief about the color of swans.

Also, what if you have mutually conflicting beliefs, one of which always works. For instance, for red cars I replace a belt; for Fords I replace the muffler. If all red cars except red Fords need their belts replaced and all non-red Fords need their mufflers replaced, while red Fords sometimes need either their belt or muffler replaced, doesn’t this represent knowledge in some sense?

Useful ways of thinking do not have to be completely correct. Assessing the soundness and validity of logical statements and arguments are a good way of keeping ourselves honest, but don’t represent the sum total of human thinking.

‘I know how to do something’ means the same as ‘I know that, in order to do something you have to do the following…’

You have to be very careful when using equivalence relations when it comes to knowledge. You could certainly try to extract a belief or set of beliefs from the statement “I know how to ..” (For instance, you could know “in case A, do this; In case B, do this; in case C, do this;etc…”) But I’m not convinced that you can capture everything we mean by “knowing how to fix a car” with a single belief or list of beliefs. Perhaps “know how ..” refers to a capacity or likeliness to act in a certain way given certain circumstances. “Knowing how ” can mean you operate according to a certain set of rules, such as the rules of soccer. You don’t need to have any beliefs to act in a certain way. Zombies can know how to play soccer but have no beliefs. Hell, you could teach a robot to play soccer and it would not have any beliefs.

In other words, you want this to be about the common understanding of knowledge.

I do not want this, and I don’t think Vox has argued for this either. I believe his point was to remind unfamiliar readers that Delavagus was using a specific definition of knowledge, one that might be different from what they take the term to mean. To the familiar, it can be a reminder that there are many ways to try and capture “knowledge” with a definition. He was not arguing for specifically one. Further, I believe that the notion of a “common” definition of knowledge is a mirage. Frankly, I have no idea what your mean unless you rigorously define your terms, and the same for you with respect to me.

Concerning the Rumsfeld taxonomy. I believe that “unknown knowns” are more a problem about consciousness. If you are not aware, that you know something, I wouldn’t call this knowing (by my defintion).

“There are beliefs that are technically false but do represent knowledge.”

Again, by my definition of knowledge, I tend to be more strict and wouldn’t call false beliefes knowledge. Especially with statements using the universal quantification you should cautious. Why say something like “All swans are white”, which isn’t falsifyable, when you could say “All swans that I have ever seen are white”?
With ‘All swans are white’ you are implicitly saying that there is no swan that isn’t white, which is a think you can’t know (by my definition).

“Useful ways of thinking do not have to be completely correct”

I’m not denying that there are practical advantages in statements, that are not true in a strict sense. False believes can also lead you to right things. But if are looking for thruths you should be precise not to come to rushed conclusions. Furthermore precision isn’t a goal that is complicated to achieve.
Instead of speaking about all red cars you could say “All red cars I know” or something like that.

“But I’m not convinced that you can capture everything we mean by “knowing how to fix a car” with a single belief or list of beliefs.”

I think it MUST be a list of believes. There is only a certain number of problems a car can have. And by saying that you know how to fix a car, you are saying that you can fix all or most of these problems.
One could maybe argue that this list isn’t correct or complete, but I think this isn’t really a problem .

As for zombies and robots. I wouldn’t say that either of those “know” anything.

“I do not want this,…”

Okay, then I misunderstood your position in this regard.

“Further, I believe that the notion of a “common” definition of knowledge is a mirage. ”

My point wasn’t about a common defintion but about a common understanding of knowledge.

Back to JTB. So you don’t think truth and believes should be in the definition of ‘x knows A’, What is your definition of knowledge?

““Knowing how ” can mean you operate according to a certain set of rules, such as the rules of soccer.”

I would phrase it like this:

x knows how to play soccer if and only if
1) x believes that “if you want to play soccer, you have to do y (y being a list of actions according to the rules of soccer)” is true.
2) “if you want to play soccer, you have to do y” is true [Meaning the rules of soccer are the same as the ones the person is believing in]
3) x is justified to believe that “if you want to play soccer, you have to do y” is true. [Meaning that someone told him the rules or he read them ect.]

If you are not aware, that you know something, I wouldn’t call this knowing (by my defintion).

This is a tricky question. It’s clearly silly to assert that “knowing” means “knowing that you know”, not to mention the contradiction that you accept that someone knows something but wouldn’t call it knowing.

But awareness certainly does affect knowledge. For instance, if A => B and you know A, but don’t know that A => B, do you also know B? I would say no. What if you know A and know that A => B, but never thought through the implications?

Why say something like “All swans are white”, which isn’t falsifyable, when you could say “All swans that I have ever seen are white”?…

But if are looking for thruths you should be precise not to come to rushed conclusions.

I tend to be more strict when I assess whether I know something than when I assess whether someone else knows something. In particular, I don’t expect another person to think with as much precision as I do. I try to make my conclusions as precise as possible but we have to take other people’s beliefs as they are, not as they could be.

I want to consider the belief “All swans are white” to be knowledge, in some sense. Mainly because as a belief, it is a better approximation of the truth than believing “All swans are green.” I don’t think that the JTB paradigm accounts for the fact that are beliefs are merely approximations of the truth. Like a map that gets more accurate over time, our beliefs (hopefully) converge to the truth. But just because 16th century maps aren’t completely accurate, that North and South America show up is clearly an improvement over a 10th century map that omits them. And you can’t call these maps “rushed”, because it took many centuries to gather enough information to make them sufficiently accurate.

It’s unclear to me how to make this intuition precise and I have no definition to offer. Just that I find it more useful to think of knowledge as acceptable approximations of truth than in terms of beliefs that take the form of logical statements.

I tend to be more strict and wouldn’t call false beliefes knowledge.

Is this because you stick to the JTB definition? Do you have a term for almost correct beliefs?

“not to mention the contradiction that you accept that someone knows something but wouldn’t call it knowing.”

It’s not a contradiction by my definition. In the described case I wouldn’t say the person knows about this information, that is somehow inside him/her.

“What if you know A and know that A => B, but never thought through the implications?”

If you never “thought trough” the implication A=>B, you clearly don’t understand what the implications means, ergo you don’t KNOW A=>B.
In order to know ‘A’ and ‘A=>B’ the person must believe these sentences to be true, they must be true and the person must be justified to believe them to be true. How could anyone justify a statement if he hasn’t thought it trough?

“I don’t think that the JTB paradigm accounts for the fact that are beliefs are merely approximations of the truth.”

I don’t know if you meant that, but JTB isn’t about bieliefs, but about knowledge. Approximations of the thruth are not knowledge, by JTB standards, but can without problem be believes.

Concerning the 16th century maps. In which way do they represent knowledge? Knowledge about how the land REALLY is? I think not. The value in those maps and the knowledge in them was, that the drawings on those could be used to navigate in the world and that they represent a picture of the world.

“Is this because you stick to the JTB definition? Do you have a term for almost correct beliefs?”

Don’t take the effect and make if the cause. It’s hard for me to say anything is knowledge if it isn’t true. But you know, this could also be a language thing. My mother tongue is German and ‘to know’ in German is ‘wissen’. And ‘wissen’ (‘I know’ = ‘ich weiß’) is understood as something being true. I thought about the thruth paradigm and came to the conclusion that being strict about it makes more sence to me. But this is the thing with definitions. Not everybody comes to the same conclusions and has the same understanding of a term.

When it comes to approximations of thruth, I most of the time just use ‘believe’:

I believe that there is no god.
I believe that the theory of evolution is right.
I believe that I can trust my eyes (compared to: I know that my eyes can see something. )

If the truth is something that bothers you with JTB, you could consider the ‘consensus theory of truth’ or ‘coherentism’. Those theorys could make those things you consider knowledge be true in a spezial sense and so also make it knowledge for JTB.

691: Secondly, one outlandish belief does not invalidate your others. James Watson believes that black Africans have inferior IQs and Freeman Dyson does not believe in global warming. Does that invalidate their other work?

No, but not for the reason you think. In fact, it makes their other work more likely to be true.

They are right on things for which there is overwhelming pressure to be wrong. This is a mark of high intelligence and high integrity, both essential qualities for a scientist.

They are right on things for which there is overwhelming pressure to be wrong. This is a mark of high intelligence and high integrity…
Definitionally so. I mean, you’re saying they are right and being right is the mark of being intelligent. Why don’t you just assert they are intelligent – well, because it doesn’t seem as impressive if you’re direct about who’s claiming it.

Yes. Implicit in every comment is that this is what the commenter says. In this case, it is my opinion that science says that they are right. A more interesting question is who is saying they are wrong. In my opinion, the religions of egalitarianism, in the first case, and environmentalism/Gaiaism, in the second.

Well, I don’t give too many fucks about climate science (I’ll just get a high-paying job on one of them hugefuck semi-self-contained arks the rich will build if shit gets really severe, lol😉 ), but as far as genetics of intelligence are concerned the jury is still out there as to what part of the effect is genetic and just how much does the elusive “g” affect test results (tests I know of are too susceptible to extraneous bullshit like test-training to be considered solid intelligence detectors).
The sad thing is that modern technology makes the claim that standardized test performance has a very strong genetic component verifiable AND falsifiable, but both proponents and detractors seem to be quite annoyingly uninterested in getting a good sample and seeing if test performance correlates with particular alleles.

Also, as I said before, practical significance of genetic intelligence factors is nearly nonexistent, since it’s easier to use contract law to impose certain cognitive performance demands upon new employees than making a good guess based on their ethnic heritage / family background. It’s a pedantic argument about how many elusive g-daemons are there in a chromosome.

There are two reasons to pay attention to it. First, it’s a very good illustration that the institution of science is not that infallible in its claims (in the short term); it’s relatively easy to manufacture scientific consensus by just not publishing, not funding and smearing scientists who don’t agree with the “right” view. Second, CO2 emissions are strongly correlated with economic output, and a significant cut in emissions will lead to a “Greater” depression, without doing much, if anything, to counter the hypothesized “climate change” according to the official IPCC models. (And if you’re thinking that we can afford that… we can, but the world’s poor quite likely cannot.)

Also, as I said before, practical significance of genetic intelligence factors is nearly nonexistent, since it’s easier to use contract law…

It’s very much practically significant that you can lose your job and your reputation for holding the wrong opinion on it.

… both proponents and detractors seem to be quite annoyingly uninterested in getting a good sample and seeing if test performance correlates with particular alleles.

I am not seeing wide-scale suppression of scientific evidence (though there is evidence for suppression attempts on both sides of the argument). Both proponents and detractors have political buddies and decent press coverage (I kind of find it amusing that detractors, who are backed by a huge body of industrial moguls and political lobbyists, like to play “we’re the persecuted victims of political manipulation” card as if they have no political heavy-hitters of their own), and both proponents and detractors have bits of evidence that, to me, appear a mite fiddly.

As to CO2-emission control, well, to me it seems to be a nice thing irrespective of climate because pushing “green” tech incentivizes innovation and reduces dependence from 1) a notably finite and wildly depleting resource that has better uses than burning it 2) reduces dependence upon external political entities whom I consider to be “shitbags”, such as mideastern monarchies.
Also, it seems to me that we need to take over the “climate control” of this planet irrespective of CO2 shenanigans, cause there is evidence that destructive climate change is possible even in absence of human infrastructure, and we need ways to prevent that.

I realize that the world’s poor can not afford all the expensive innovation-shminnovation and will get the shit end of CO2 reduction stick, especially in the biofuel dept that essentially makes liquid-fuel dependent infrastructure compete with humans for biological resources.
Sucks to be poor, I guess.

“It’s very much practically significant that you can lose your job and your reputation for holding the wrong opinion on it.”

I somehow doubt that Watson is now giving out blowjobs for $50 in a filthy bar, or otherwise impaired employment-wise🙂 (and his reputation was set in stone decades ago and hasn’t moved a bit. It’s far from the first time he gets into a vicious fight over “disagreeable”, overreaching claims )

And mind you, the problem isn’t that he stated that genes/race/whatev. affect intelligence (that’s trivial to the point of platitude) but that he made a rather unwarranted generalization to a complex system encompassing an entire motherloving continent (not all of which is a festering hellhole, BTW).

Also, as to correlation of CO2 and industrial output, I don’t think we can assert that the relation is unavoidably causal in some fundamental way, and that high industrial output with a lower emission profile is inconceivable.
Meanwhile, there are perfectly non-climatic reasons to consider such a form of industrial establishment desirable, as outlined above.

Meanwhile, there are perfectly non-climatic reasons to consider such a form of industrial establishment desirable, as outlined above.

There may well be, but corrupting climate science to give the politically correct results, discrediting the whole institution of science in the process, is not quite the right way to effect this desirable outcome.

“The whole idea of claiming that “detractors” are backed by a huge body of moguls and lobbyists is for people to find it amusing.”

I don’t think you can deny that both sides of climate argument each have a large bunch of political and business supporters. No one in the climate debate can really play the “we’re a persecuted, silenced minority” card, because no one in this debate is (un😉 )-persecuted, no-one can be expected to be silenced any time soon, and everybody is in cahoots with some political or industrial interest of some sort.

” That’s the problem with most interesting traits. Of course, for IQ, it’s to be expected, given its enormous variability. “

I am fine as long as people 1) acknowledge this problem 2) realize that this problem limits the extent and nature of generalizations they can make 3) realize that IQ, while correlating to intelligence, does not equal it, and thus the effect on “elusive g” is even harder to estimate from IQ results.

” There may well be, but not quite successfully corrupting climate science to give the politically correct results, not quite successfully discrediting the whole institution of climate science in the process, is not quite the right way to effect this desirable outcome. “

Fix’d.

Otherwise, I agree of course. It would be of course nice if political influences on both sides of climate kerfuffle would just GTFO.

No one in the climate debate can really play the “we’re a persecuted, silenced minority” card…

From a purely political point of view, no. From a scientific point of view, yes. The “detractors” were systematically denied publication because the journals were controlled by the “believers”; and I hear that it was much easier to obtain funding if you were a “believer”, or at least not a “detractor”. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

What matters, for the question of determining whether the institution of science has the best track record in making true claims, is what institution does this person represent?

Ie, by quoting you, I’m pitching it’s science when it goes your way, it’s a whole bunch of questions when it doesn’t. Atleast by the way my boat floats, you can’t use science here to say they are right, then use a guy in his shed to question whether science has a good/best track record of making true claims.

Atleast by the way my boat floats, you can’t use science here to say they are right, then use a guy in his shed to question whether science has a good/best track record of making true claims.

You might want to note that I’m not using “institution of science” here, just “science”. The institution doesn’t yet say they are right. My interpretation of the scientific results and the raw data, however, is that they are right, and I predict that the institution will come to the same conclusion, given enough time.

I never worked in climate science, so I don’t really know. But. It seems to me that at most, we have a case of mild distortion in the process of being corrected for.

Yes, science can be skewed by political interest, however, there is an (admittedly, vague) limit on the amount of bull you can push before things start spinning down the gutter. Science, you see, is all about making falsifiable claims. If your falsifiable claims you make are bull, and you just run on political backing, you will face an uphill battle at just maintaining status quo, let alone advancing your POV.

You know, it took science, what, like 40+ years to find out that no massive damage results from porn, yet, over time, people who claimed such damage have seen deterioration of their position despite the massive backing they have from soc-cons. If “human climate change” is indeed full of it, we will see similar deterioration of this position.

The best part of “scientific establishment” is “put up or shut up” part. It keeps time cubes, string theorists, and concerned parents at bay.

Jorge: That is, when an institution OTHER THAN SCIENCE makes a TRUTH CLAIM, you need to be extremely skeptical.

This again comes down to what is science, and the institution thereof. If an independent researcher, working alone – today – in his garage, self-publishes his findings in a Kindle e-book without any peer review, is he part of the institution of science? Does the answer change based on whether he’s right? On whether he’s religious?

Like some patent clerk doing physics on the side? Really the process of science, as I estimate it, is some regime of stringent testing and restesting. Attempts at disconfirming the theory by running the test over and over, giving it a chance to turn out another way. Does that happen in your example? If it does, it’s like the first steps of scientific practice – it’d go through alot more retesting experiments as the next steps.

What matters, for the question of determining whether the institution of science has the best track record in making true claims, is what institution does this person represent, that is, who gets the credit for the true claim.

Or let me put it another way. It’s easy to define the institution of science in such a way that (almost) all true claims are attributed to it by definition. That’s because it is usually science that confirms that a claim is true, regardless of who made it.

It also matters, when talking about the institution of science making claims, to distinguish between the historical institution and the present institution. That is, if science has made a claim in 1812 and it still makes this claim in 2012, this claim is very likely to be right. If, however, science has newly made a claim in 2012, the likelihood is a bit lower. Mechanically applying the first probability to the second case is incorrect.

Although hugely successful; Semmelweis’ discovery directly confronted with the beliefs of science and medicine in his time. His colleagues and other medical professionals refused to accept his findings mainly because they did not find it convincing that they could be responsible for spreading infections. The reaction reflected on his job as well when he was declined a reappointment in 1849.

…

The continued criticism and lash out finally broke him down. By 1865, he was suffering from depression, forgetfulness and other neural complaints and was eventually committed to an asylum. He only lasted there for two weeks and died on August 13, 1865 at the age of 47.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare institutional science now and in 1849. Current institution is far more tolerant of claims it considers outrageous (consider the case of h. pylory bug discovery, which, while a bumpy ride, is a huge success)

And, of course the probability of “scientific” claim being made (and TESTED) for a very long time is somewhat higher than a recent claim – there was far more time to test falsifiable predictions of first claim, replicate experiments, etc.

If you are looking for an institution that constantly makes (falsifiable) claims, and isn’t part of science, look no further than astrology. Now, it compares pretty poorly.

(I wanted to poke fun at religion, but then realized that “religion”, unlike “astrology” avoids making any falsifiable claims, and when it does… see our little exchange with Vox about falsifying Christianity in this very thread)

I don’t think it’s fair to compare institutional science now and in 1849. Current institution is far more tolerant of claims it considers outrageous (consider the case of h. pylory bug discovery, which, while a bumpy ride, is a huge success)

Maybe. Allow me a large degree of skepticism though. I’m sure that the science of 1849 could say the same thing, that it’s far more tolerant of outrageous claims than it once was. These things only become clear with time.

The presence of “scientific police”, by the way, is not a defect. Science is inherently self-policing.

If you are looking for an institution that constantly makes (falsifiable) claims, and isn’t part of science, look no further than astrology. Now, it compares pretty poorly.

How about we constrain ourselves to medicine, look at claims made by doctors and compare them to claims made by medical scientists? In the long term, all these claims, if true, will have been adopted by medical science, but they were not all made by medical science.

Pdimov, 1849 dudes would be entirely right to claim that they are more accepting than the dudes who came before them. Poor Semmelweis wasn’t staked, stoned, or burned to death. Which was, at the time, a large improvement.

Now, you can make an outrageous claim, propose an experiment that may or may not falsify it, carry it out and you will be taken seriously. Of course, there are bullshit reservoirs (string theory, evopsych, quantum-brains, etc.) but they seem to be running out of bullshit to spin their case.

” How about we constrain ourselves to medicine, look at claims made by doctors and compare them to claims made by medical scientists? In the long term, all these claims, if true, will have been adopted by medical science, but they were not all made by medical science.”

How do you draw the line ? What differentiates a doctor from a medical scientist ? Would a doctor participating in a double-blind study be a medical scientist or still just a practitioner ?

How do you draw the line ? What differentiates a doctor from a medical scientist ? Would a doctor participating in a double-blind study be a medical scientist or still just a practitioner ?

Yeah. You do realize that if nobody draws that line the statement that the institution of science has the best track record in producing true claims becomes trivial, right? I mean, if you define science as the institution that has made all true claims, then it kind of trivially follows that science has the best track record, no?

Stated differently, if you say that the institution of science has the best track record of making true claims, then it’s up to you to draw the line that separates the institution of science from everything else. No?

Or let me put it another way. It’s easy to define the institution of science in such a way that (almost) all true claims are attributed to it by definition. That’s because it is usually science that confirms that a claim is true, regardless of who made it.

It’s also easy to define science in a way that no true claims or an incapacity to make true claims is attributed to it by definition. This is the problem of someone making themselves the sole interpretor/sole definer.

Do you want to figure out where our claims overlap? Or do you just want to question our definition, using ‘why’ as a caustic acid to eat away at the definition and make it all seem like nothing when really that’s because you hold no definition yourself (or withhold it from actual conversation).

So, are there claim makers out there, some of them wearing lab coats for their job? Do our intepretations atleast overlap this far? Can we establish atleast this tiny overlap, or are you here to just say no, no, no and be the sole interpretor? I don’t think you’re here for the latter myself, but I think it’s possible so I’m checking. Can we atleast both agree on a tiny scrap of common ground on this question?

Side note: If you want to suggest Scott uses ‘why’ as an acid only, I’ll chew that over. But I think he is interested in seeing where his interpretation overlaps others interpretations.

Or do you just want to question our definition, using ‘why’ as a caustic acid to eat away at the definition and make it all seem like nothing when really that’s because you hold no definition yourself (or withhold it from actual conversation).

I’m not questioning your definition, because so far, there has been none. And this is not a “why”, by the way. I’m not asking you “why”.

Let me repeat. If you say that

The institution of science has the best track record in making true claims.

then whether this statement is correct depends very much on what you consider the institution of science to be. Some definitions make the statement trivial, others make it interesting and falsifiable.

Furthermore, the practical use of this statement is as a basis to evaluating claims. If a claim has been made by the institution of science, you assign a higher confidence to this claim; if it hasn’t, you assign a lower confidence. That must be the idea, or else what’s the point?

But for this you have to have a way to determine, given a claim and its author, whether it has been made by the institution of science or not.

So, are there claim makers out there, some of them wearing lab coats for their job? Do our intepretations atleast overlap this far? Can we establish atleast this tiny overlap, or are you here to just say no, no, no and be the sole interpretor?

Still waiting. It wouldn’t be hard to say ‘Yeah, of course’ to this. Or if you can’t even agree with me on this small interpretation, perhaps even suggest an even smaller interpretation we both use in the same way?

Otherwise it does seem you’re just here to say no, no, no! Here’s a minute interpretation, the word is spelt ‘science’. Hell, you even spell it that way too in your posts (as I interpret it, if there is any room for interpretation, which I think there isn’t). So we both agree on that same, small thing, right?

If you can’t stand to agree on even that with me, if you can’t stand to agree on anything with me, even something so minute, then you have entered sheer bloody mindedness mode! And shit, man, I don’t even want to be right about that, so prove me wrong and just agree on some small interpretation of mine so it shows we have some sort of common ground.

So, are there claim makers out there, some of them wearing lab coats for their job?

Yes.

Here’s a minute interpretation, the word is spelt ‘science’. Hell, you even spell it that way too in your posts (as I interpret it, if there is any room for interpretation, which I think there isn’t). So we both agree on that same, small thing, right?

Yes.

You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter whether I agree. Just pick a definition, any definition you like.

Whoa whoa whoa – pdimov let’s not forget that you have constrained the field to “medical”, thus leaving out a whole bunch of claim-makers

And in the medical field, line between “practitioner” and “scientist” is very blurry because practitioners both base their actions on info from medical science, and routinely participate in scientific endeavors as part of a research effort or just providing feedback / initial observations.

You might have at some point in the past had medical non-scientific claim-makers, but at this point the only claim makers in medicine who aren’t in the “medical science decision making loop” are practitioners of “alternative/traditional” medicine.

Would you be satisfied with a definition that splits the medical field along that line ?

P.S.:
you could also probably propose that nurses and EMTs are sufficiently remote from scientific process to be considered “separate” but I am not aware of any major medical claims made by those that would not be directly taken from claims of “medical science”. EMTs and nurses rarely engage in claim-making😉

You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter whether I agree. Just pick a definition, any definition you like.
I’ll just reply to this first. I think you are the one who does not get it. If you have some absolutely rigid stance on something then…I’ll give an example I might share with you, of a rigid stance against so called female ‘circumcision’. If your against that, then it’s not just going to be a game of definitions in regards to that subject. If you pretend to yourself it’s just definitions, you’ll be blind to the way your brain will just force to you to ignore stuff on the matter. Deny your demons and you make them stronger and all that.

Same here, on the topic of science. If we both don’t get an idea of what you actually agree with, then if you do have some absolutely rigid stance, it will remain invisible in the conversation, but repeatedly fuck it up over and over. All the while you’ll try and say I don’t get it, when there’s this elephant in your room. That’s my hypothesis.

What I’m sure of is that on the subject of female ‘circumcision’, I wouldn’t be some unbiased discusser. If I didn’t acknowledge to myself how it’s likely to bias my readings, if I pretended I’m really open minded on the matter, I’d be the very opposite of open minded.

If you want to say you’re open minded on the subject of science, that could possibly be true. Or it could possibly be bullshit. I’ve already had one conversation with you where a subject of ‘social change’ suddenly changed ot a subject of ‘anthropological survey’ at the last second.

I’ve said my piece and you’re probably going to just say you are unbiased on the subject of what this ‘science’ idea is and…I’m too skeptical to base a conversation on that idea. I can’t help remember that other commentators here have given links to such definitions already.

Actually that ties in neatly with definitions – I can’t exactly define meat as ‘tasty’, if I’m talking to a vegetarian.

Were talking about what claim makers you trust (are we not?). If I call them tasty when to you it’s meat, then I stumble. I do need to know more about what you agree on, in order to use a definition we both (to atleast some degree) use the same way.

No? Would you say definitions work no matter the values of the reader?

“The wait has been long enough, Father. Answers without questions? Meaning without context? What courseless tracts have been worn into the souls of worldborn men? Scott must be plyed. The wait has been long enough.”
-http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/65932-white-luck-warrior-ix/page__st__80#entry3198193

1) how would one determine Jesus’s bones from the bones of some average shmuck who got into a pissing contest with Romans, got nailed to a wooden implement, and later buried ? What special properties does scripture assign to Jesus’s skeletal anatomy ?

2) Would patients with severe wasting diseases, who live at most about 10-15 years or so, most of them bed-ridden, be considered “sinless” as long as we are not privy to their mental states ? Would people riddled with both a severe muscle disorder and mental disorder that would greatly limit their capacity to form “sinful” thoughts qualify ?

3) When eliminating poverty, do we have to use modern definition, or a definition consistent with scriptural depictions of poverty / information available about lifestyle of the “poor” in historical period of say 1 AD ? :p

It appears to me that if we must use scriptural concept of “sin” in ex. 2, we should use scriptural definition of “poverty here, for consistency’s sake.

4) Did Vox really design computer games, and if so, are they for sale ?

2) No idea. Presumably not; if you can’t think or act, how can you sin?

3) I agree.

4) Yes. I’m mostly reviewing other designers designs no and tweaking them a bit, although I am doing a little mobile game with two of the Ilk as well. The most recent project I can mention was Age of Conan. I was brought in to help fix it, but the guy who replaced Gaute was a producer and had no interest in fixing any of the design flaws, only the operational flaws. We all know how that worked out. In my opinion, it was an object lesson on why producers should never be given design responsibilities.

1) And how would that be, given that both physical features and details of his demise are remarkably unremarkable ? There is virtually no way to reliably tell hypothetical Jesus skeleton from just-some-shmuck-who-got-crossed-by-Romans skeleton, unless there is some scriptural tidbit which ascribes unusual properties to savior’s skeletal anatomy.

2) Well, I covered two scenarios – people who do not seem to engage in any sinful acts, but might be attributed with “sinful thoughts” (problematic, though, since we have no thought-o-visor), and people who have the intelligence to think and form speech, but not enough to think much “sinful”.

I take it that you provisionally consider that second case does not count, but are uncertain to the point of claiming “no idea”, while making no judgement on the first case, is that correct ?

3) Well, if you agree that we should use scriptural kind of poverty for that case, then it can be reasonably claimed that many states, including USA, can be said to have eliminated (scriptural) poverty.

A homeless drunk man in USA has a much more comfortable and safe lifestyle than a homeless, drunk man in Jerusalem in, say, 1 AD, and some of them failing socialist states are so far managing to pull an even stronger “social security” net for the “most unfortunate”.

So yes, we have cases of successful elimination of scriptural-type poverty, and the subject of whether biblical-sinless humans exist is more thorny and debatable than you seem to imply. Jesus bones are primarily problematic because there appears to be no way to falsify a claim that a given bone of appropriate age is indeed Jesus’s (or isn’t Jesus’s), so, given such unfalsifiability, the Jesus skeleton is a poor falsification criterion.

And people with wasting diseases can act for a while in many cases. Just… not for very long, only becoming immobile as disease progresses.
Still, they are usually a very peaceful and sorry bunch, and I’m pretty sure some of them could be demonstrated to be sinless in act, if not in thought, even under thorough observation.

“One of the things I was hoping to spark with this post is a discussion of the kinds of criteria that could be used to make this determination.”

I had been thinking about this. I have to start that i do believe in some Buddhists doctrines, like meditating. I think it may be a awesome tool for analyzing ourselves rationally. The kind of open space that is involved in it I think provides for self analyzation. (i can’t seem to spell it this early in the morning). It takes a great amount of ‘open to possibilities’ to really allow your mind to calm, and when your mind is calm a degree of humility opens up.

But this is more opinion, and as such subject to all the pitfalls you suggest. I think you may have been asking is there any possible formal systems that can be applied and perhaps studied to test our claims. The only ‘argument’ I can think of in support of this. Is that it seems to me (again ‘seems to me’) that buddhists have generated the greatest amount of interesting people for any institution.

My biggest problem with Vox is that if someone is a super intelligence it just seems to me that they dont claim it or use it in so many arguments or sentences. Its supposed to speak for itself. You (vox) dont decide your a super intelligence, other people say that until the name earns its recognition from the praise of other highly thought of people (not your mom, or your fan club). Otherwise your just a overly cocky nerd.
Also I just think of someone as a superintelligence as someone who has thought of or done something no one else has done. Which as far as ive seen Vox copies other smart people and makes a book about it (IE the return of the great depression repeats Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Jim Grant, most other austrain economists.). He says hes a game designer, then points out a couple bad games. Have you ever made a good game, or truly made a prediction about anything true before anyone else did? Neither would make you a superintelligence, but at least you would have your first string of credibility.

I just think real superintelligences (Da Vinci, Einstien, Tesla, Hawking) deserve there names, Because history decided they were.. History will place vox as another fraud who invented nothing, changed the world in no way, and never had an original thought (Hard for people with high IQs to do, a savant never invents anything, they just repeat or imitate well). If im wrong Vox, please tell me what will cause people a hundred years after your dead to call you a super intelligence? Arguing definitions with people on the internet while ignoring the substance? Making books, restating arguments of other people who are smarter than you? Editing and “fixing” games that people didn’t think were fixed at all and no one liked anyway? Or more likely going crazy and killing a shitload of people one day when you snap and realize youve wasted what you consider to be super intelligence (I bet Anders Brovick did better at that then you could or will), making zero contributions to anything constructive or new?

At least RSB has made a book that people will buy for hundreds of years whereas your books will fade and be outdated, after they are proven irrelevant or just as badly written rewrites of people who are smarter than you.

It may be said that Vox was the person that was the greatest at patting himself on the back, and then buying himself an ice cream because no one cared one shit, not even a shart about him.

Also I just think of someone as a superintelligence as someone who has thought of or done something no one else has done. Which as far as ive seen Vox copies other smart people and makes a book about it (IE the return of the great depression repeats Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Jim Grant, most other austrain economists.). He says hes a game designer, then points out a couple bad games. Have you ever made a good game, or truly made a prediction about anything true before anyone else did? Neither would make you a superintelligence, but at least you would have your first string of credibility.

You’re a clueless idiot. RGD does nothing of the sort; you quite clearly haven’t read it nor understood why it’s been used as a textbook at universities like UC-Boulder. I mean, I spent the entire time I was on Peter Schiff’s show patiently trying to explain to him that mindlessly repeating “the central banks will print money” does not mean that deflation is impossible. While I do subscribe to Austrian economics, I also appear to be the first to propose an alternative for the core mechanism of the Austrian Business Cycle since Rothbard, one which explains, as Rothbard’s precludes, why the cycle can be observed to apply to financial markets as a first-order effect and not a second-order one.

At least RSB has made a book that people will buy for hundreds of years whereas your books will fade and be outdated, after they are proven irrelevant or just as badly written rewrites of people who are smarter than you.

Now that is definitely amusing. Bakker’s written two good fantasy books, and a few mediocre ones. No shame in that, but unless he seriously ups his game, his books won’t be read in thirty years. And the same probably applies to me… although TIA will probably still be relevant since atheists have barely presented a new argument since Jean Meslier.

I find the notion that Bakker’s books will keep popping up a hundred years from now to be entirely plausible, given that the “legacy” of, say, Barsoom series still lives on. Making a book that will keep entertaining people for over a hundred years doesn’t seem that hard a task, Vox. You should definitely give it a try.

““the central banks will print money” does not mean that deflation is impossible.”
Yes it does. if the central banks print 6 trillion more dollars there is 6 trillion dollars more in the money supply thus making the dollars currently available definitely worth less (thus inflating), when the central banks print more money inflation is guaranteed. How could it be otherwise? How could the fed print money and still deflate the dollar? Peter Schiff wants the dollar to deflate, so does everyone, but printing more money can never make that money as well as the money currently in circulation more valuable.. As far as I understand Schiff it is the fact that the fed sets interest rates (continually low) which cant happen in a free market, as well as the bailouts instead of the liquidation of those companies who took the gamble and lost. You cant set rates or pick winners in a free market. bad business decisions cause businesses to fail, if we bail them out it sets a bad example and punishes the ones who didnt make bad decisions.
If and while the fed still prints money deflation is impossible. I dont think the inflation from the bailouts has even hit the dollar yet.
What do you believe is the core mechanism for the austrian business cycle, and how do you believe these previous astrian economists missed it

“Now that is definitely amusing. Bakker’s written two good fantasy books”
So you just admitted he has written 2 GOOD fantasy books. Thats a first from Vox (so he has done more then you ever will, 2 good books compared to nill). but on the point that yours will be relevant, maybe relevant. but people would still prefer to read all the authors you talk shit on in that book because they have accomplished more then you ever will and were more interesting. I could argue some dead people, but they cant argue back so I would just feel like a pussy.
Who would ever listen to a self proclaimed superintelligence? You never defended the fact that no one but you have ever said your name and superintelligence in the same sentance unless they were mocking you. Can you defend that?

On a side not: You did not answer one question I asked you, You decided to pick out two paragraphs in which I did not ask a question and respond to them.
“his books won’t be read in thirty years. And the same probably applies to me…” -Vox the super intelligent nobody.
yet you are a super intelligence..? (And I hope there are more Earwa book being written 30 years from now, I will still be reading them) Fantasy books are different than opinion/spunhistory. Fantasy is timeless (unless you write it apparently Vox, I would never even attempt to read those nor did anyone else..).

Filled with otherworldly creatures and all-out spiritual warfare, “The War in Heaven” establishes Theodore Beale as a rare talent who successfully blends the Christian and fantasy genres in a dazzling tale of faith and redemption.

I dont like christain rock, nor do I like christain fantasy. The bible is full of enough fantasy for me. And I live in Utah, so I get the revised (Book of Mormon) edition enough as well…

Actually, I think that many of the “superhuman” AIs, if such thing is ever going to built, will eventually end up a lot like Vox. There will be Manhattan-sized processing superclusters using a Niagara-worth of water for cooling and several nuclear powerplants for electricity, dedicated solely to constructing intricate rationalizations for whichever weirdness got stuck in the AI’s goal system early on.
And may whatever god exists, if any, have mercy upon those who try to get in such a thing’s way – retaliation a thousandfold seems a popular meme with Vox.

If you extend the parenthood metaphor, then the fact that we pretty much intend to use AIs for tasks that are too hard, too dangerous, too stressful or too boring for ourselves to handle suggests that we, as a society, are possibly among the worst possible “AI parents” (definitely in worst 100)

Oh yeah, the slavery aspect I completely forgot about! I imagine some AI watching starwars and the slave roles all the robots are put into, and even how the battle droids in the first movies are clearly capable of some thought, but are slaughtered like they are nothing (not that the clones aren’t killed idly and no one cries or even bats an eyelid, but again ‘they aint real people’).

what is panpsychism, I definitely think some new mold of science and religion not only must come, but will. its a belief I personally have, so I am curious. I believe this because while I agree with bakker for the most on his opinion of science, though I think science does not really answer personal needs too much.

One can’t help but notice that, for all his glorious super-intelligence, Vox shares his boat with a pitifully impotent bunch.

The US (let alone the corrupt commie-socialistic paganistic sodomogomorrah that is modern “West” at large, whatever the fuck “West” actually is…) seems to be moving in a direction Vox dislikes at pretty much every angle, from Republican candidates (he doesn’t seem to keen on Romney) to gay rights to even goldbuggery.
It’s almost as if people like him are especially unlikely to affect the world around them in a manner they desire despite all their “admirable” qualities. (perhaps god is altering the world to give them butthurt, as a way of avenging all the bad rap they are giving god🙂 ? )

It should be also noted that all games Vox participated in (at least as far as wiki is concerned) were either “meh” or outright flops. Perhaps he’s the perfect counter-indicator?
Or…even an improbability engine of sorts, twisting reality to fit his nightmares…. You know what ? Maybe the way for republicans to defeat Obama would be to get Vox to support Obama😉

P.S.: Scott, could you please whitelist me by my worpress acc ? (yethird.wordpress.com) ? I hear there is a magic button for that

One can’t help but notice that, for all his glorious super-intelligence, Vox shares his boat with a pitifully impotent bunch. The US (let alone the corrupt commie-socialistic paganistic sodomogomorrah that is modern “West” at large, whatever the fuck “West” actually is…) seems to be moving in a direction Vox dislikes at pretty much every angle, from Republican candidates (he doesn’t seem to keen on Romney) to gay rights to even goldbuggery.

It certainly is. Of course, most people are idiots and throughout the course of history, civilizations have developed, expanded, degenerated, and fallen. It seems readily apparent to me that we are witnessing the end of the American empire and possibly the collapse of Western civilization as well. You’re just one of the many civilizational degenerates who mistakes degeneracy for progress.

Unfortunately, there is a good chance we’ll both live to see who is correct. I’ve publicly predicted the political collapse of the USA by 2033 based on Bretton Woods; the interesting thing is whether the Eurocrats will be successful in erecting their Fourth Reich, or, as I anticipate, the entire edifice will collapse in the next five years. Given events in Greece, Italy, and Spain, it’s certainly looking a lot more likely than it was five years ago.

Two corrections: I don’t like any Republicans except the Pauls and I have no problem with goldbuggery. I’m the one who was writing columns and telling people to buy it when it was around $300, you may recall, when the Nobel prize-winners were calling it a barbarous relic.

It should be also noted that all games Vox participated in (at least as far as wiki is concerned) were either “meh” or outright flops.

First, wiki doesn’t have most of them. Second, I was a mediocre producer and in the early days, I was wearing both hats out of necessity. Most of my fellow designers recognize that even the flops were pretty good designs, but the implementation fell down for one reason or another. That’s why I refuse to do anything but design now, even when interesting production-related jobs present themselves. Ironically, the very “uncharitability” that Delavagus decries is exactly why I am brought in to analyze other people’s designs.

Tell me Theodore, what does it feel like to be surrounded by “harbingers of your civilization’s destruction” at every turn, to see them triumph even despite your intelligence and numbers, to feel them slowly drag down everything you hold so dear ?
What is it like to have your god leave your prayers unheeded, nonchalantly observing as “degenerate hordes” nibble away your positions like a slow rising tide of attrition incarnate?

Callan wrote:
“Like recycling…oh actually, Pen and Teller debunked that as well – which even they seemed unhappy about! ”

If you recall sir, one of the conclusions they reached in that episode is that recycling metal cans is actually beneficial. Not that I trust P&T to hold the correct view on everything (or even anything in particular). I’m sure they think they hit the Belief Jackpot too. They sure are funny though, even when I think they’re wrong.

I was going to write a caveat that one of the items they talked about was okay (aluminium, was it??). But caveats are boring and not very slogan like at all! Anyway, it’s a question of wrong by what metric? Atleast by their own metric, they appear to be right so far. (I shoulda written a caveat about the debunked to that tune as well, but…caveats are boring!).

And it’s improving. We will see both new recycling approaches that will render recycling feasible for new goods, and eventual deprecation of inefficient cycles.

And it’s not really a massive problem – for science and for society. It is, at worst, a bump. Yes, it might have a silly faith component to it, but – hey get some perspective – there is a remarkable lack of lynching over recycling. That’s a huge improvement on the historical scale.

But just selectively picking out one activity, even if it works, and calling it religious?

I call them as I see them. In this specific case, recycling (as in “I recycle”) is regarded as a virtue and allows one to perform a symbolic sacrifice (by slightly inconveniencing oneself) as a punishment for one’s sins against the Environment. If you don’t see the parallel, either your religion detector is broken, or mine is oversensitive.

I said I’m open to the idea all human activity is religious. It’s like you’ve picked one toilet out of a hundred and declared ‘people shit in this thing!’. Perhaps extend the theory, especially since whether the activity works or not is irrelevant to your declaration? What, you do the specail activities which work (or not) but aren’t religious? Somehow what you do escapes your claim, in a special manner?

Your assertion makes your toilet one that is shitted in as much as the rest.

Well, I am not quite “here” since my primary commenting account remains blocked for some reason or other.

Scott, would you please kindly check the spam folder, find message by 03, then whitelist me (you can delete those messages since they are largely redundant to ones I posted under make-do credentials like this, or hopelessly late)

And how would that be, given that both physical features and details of his demise are remarkably unremarkable ?

Actually, he was buried in a pretty substantial tomb, according to the written reports. Start checking those sealed by a rock too big to move, presumably. But again, the fact that something is difficult does not mean that it is unfalsifiable. If you’re going to claim that Jesus Christ’s historical existence is unfalsifiable, then you must be willing to make the same claim for every other human being who existed in history. Are you willing to do that?

2) Well, I covered two scenarios – people who do not seem to engage in any sinful acts, but might be attributed with “sinful thoughts” (problematic, though, since we have no thought-o-visor), and people who have the intelligence to think and form speech, but not enough to think much “sinful”. I take it that you provisionally consider that second case does not count, but are uncertain to the point of claiming “no idea”, while making no judgement on the first case, is that correct ?

Since you put it that way, the first group obviously are capable of sin, although as you note that we have no way of knowing. Actually, I simply didn’t know what level of decrepitude you were postulating; anyone with an intelligence capable of thought and speech is quite clearly capable of engaging in observable sin even if their potential range of sin is limited. But this is all a dodge, you understand. If Christianity is wrong and sin is truly avoidable by any man, it shouldn’t be impossible for a healthy adult to avoid engaging in what is, after all, a limited range of human thought and action. Can you imagine living sin-free for a year or even a month? I tend to doubt I’ve ever gone an hour without it, barring sleep. We’re all observably subject to anger, sloth, lust, greed, and pride.

3) Well, if you agree that we should use scriptural kind of poverty for that case, then it can be reasonably claimed that many states, including USA, can be said to have eliminated (scriptural) poverty.

Can it? Well, then, just eliminate it in the rest of the world and you’ve got an excellent case. Even if we assume you are correct for the sake of argument, I expect we’ll see starvation and scriptural poverty in the USA again rather than seeing it eliminated elsewhere. See, religion can be used as a predictive model!

Actually, he was buried in a pretty substantial tomb, according to the written reports. Start checking those sealed by a rock too big to move, presumably.

Well, that would be a start, but the whole “too big to move” and “substantive tomb” *(essentially a cave, IIRC) is highly subjective (especially since, IIRC, Jesus tomb was stone-sealed by humans and unsealed through supernatural means, suggesting that the stone was human-movable in the first place). I foresee interpretative bickering here😀

“But again, the fact that something is difficult does not mean that it is unfalsifiable. If you’re going to claim that Jesus Christ’s historical existence is unfalsifiable, then you must be willing to make the same claim for every other human being who existed in history. Are you willing to do that?”

I tend to subscribe to Ford interpretation of history (it’s mostly bunk), and it will be no skin off my nose if over 70+% of all historical personae turn out to be myth.
A good deal of ancient history is quite likely hearsay and bull. So what ?

Can you imagine living sin-free for a year or even a month?

Depends on whether I get paid, and how much.

We’re all observably subject to anger, sloth, lust, greed, and pride.

Well, I think that if you aren’t going to interpret avoidance of unneeded physical work as “sloth” in a person with muscle degenerative disease, a case when none of those are observable in a given patient could be built.

Can it? Well, then, just eliminate it in the rest of the world and you’ve got an excellent case.

You didn’t specify “worldwide” initially. Moving goalposts much😀 ?

Even if we assume you are correct for the sake of argument, I expect we’ll see starvation and scriptural poverty in the USA again rather than seeing it eliminated elsewhere. See, religion can be used as a predictive model!

Neato. We shall see🙂 Would you please state an explicit timeframe, to avoid an “educated donkey” scenario (aka “wait some more plox”)

Copypasta-ing my thoughts from Westeros, because I hope they get us some Earwa stuff and I don’t like to bite someone I’ve known this long behind their back:

“I wonder if there is something about blog culture, this shouting to the wind aspect, that people decide to engage in such endless intellectual masturbration. It’s really hard for me to see anything Bakker’s written since January that has varied greatly – each post is nearly the same for all intents and purposes.

And it seems so self-defeating, worrying about lost sales and then refusing to engage what may be a small but is clearly an interested fan base. Hell, I’d take some Nansur-Zeum interracial porn stories at this point, if there are some cursory details about the world mixed in.”

Vox said
“I have never claimed that Christianity possesses “indisputable evidence”. Indeed, to the contrary, I have shown that Christianity makes several claims that are perfectly falsifiable. Eliminate poverty, produce the bones of Jesus Christ, or simply lead a sinless life – sin being defined as per the Bible – and you will succeed in having proven Christianity false.”

A lively discussion on the testability of Christianism ensued. But actually, Vox did a big non sequitur and the claimed falsifiability does not bring anything to the discussion. Relativity theory possesses indisputable evidence and yet it is testable. I’d think that being testable is a great help for having evidence… Vox completely misinterprets what his critic is saying. We might very well think that Vox avoided to answer a difficult question (or a subject he didn’t want to debate at this point) and replaced it by one much easier. I couldn’t possibly comment. A good thing someone is constantly speaking of the dangers of bait and switch…

If the question is really the credibility of religion, shouldn’t we be more concerned with the tests that have been done than with the completely impractical tests Vox is proposing? If you want to defend a theory, you need to do tests, not just to argue the existence of tests.

By the way, before accusing other people of not understanding Popper, Vox should examine his own interpretation. The falsifiability criterion was used to recognise science in the sense of the positivists. Does he really want to argue that religion is scientific in that sense?
Popper used his criterion to criticise theories that avoided refutations by using excuses like: “The patient is resisting.” (psychoanalysis) or “it’s a conspiracy of capitalists and saboteurs” (communists). What would he then think about “God works in mysterious way.”? Popper’s criterion is widely discredited anyway.